linkedin_find_posts_by_author

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's read behavior is consistent with that. But the description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination behavior, response contents, or what the openWorldHint implies in practice.

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 one clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to identifying what the tool retrieves and for whom.

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?

The schema provides useful defaults and constraints, and the readOnlyHint covers safety, so a default call with author_urn is understandable. However, there is no output schema and no explanation of how view_context, count, and start affect results, leaving non-default invocations under-specified.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage, the description needed to clarify the less obvious parameters, especially view_context, count, and start. It only echoes the author_urn concept already present in the schema, leaving the READER vs AUTHOR distinction unexplained.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a specific resource ('LinkedIn posts'), and a clear scope ('by member or organization author URN'). This differentiates it from sibling tools such as linkedin_get_post or linkedin_create_text_post.

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 phrase 'by member or organization author URN' implies the tool is for retrieving posts associated with a known author. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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