Get Company Posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the vague word 'recent' and says nothing about needing an active session (implied by the close_session sibling), how far back the feed is read, or how results are ordered — despite a scroll-budget parameter existing.

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?

A single tight sentence with no wasted words and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is closer to under-specification than to optimal information density.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a session-based scraping tool the description omits the prerequisites (active session) and the sibling-routing context an agent needs, leaving it only minimally viable.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%: company_name and max_scrolls are both fully documented in the schema, including the default of 10 scrolls and URL-to-slug reduction. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get recent posts') and scopes it to 'a company's LinkedIn feed', which implicitly separates it from the personal-feed and search siblings. It does not, however, name get_feed or search_posts explicitly, so the differentiation must be inferred.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance at all. With siblings get_feed and search_posts present, an agent is left to guess whether this is the right tool for reading a company's activity versus searching or reading its own feed.

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