linkedin_post

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it's free, requires a specific access token and scope, auto-resolves and caches the person URN, and describes the return format along with common error conditions. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise, with three short sentences, each providing essential information. It front-loads the core action and uses clear punctuation, making it easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers the action, requirements, limitations, return format, and errors, leaving no significant gaps for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the 'text' parameter. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by specifying the 3000-character limit and the threading limitation, adding value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool posts directly to LinkedIn as a single feed post, with a max length of 3000 chars. It distinguishes itself from potential siblings that might do threading by explicitly noting LinkedIn has no public threading API.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly mentions that only single posts are supported due to LinkedIn's lack of threading API, and lists common errors. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool and what to expect.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.