linkedin_export_posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to re-state safety. It does add 'with engagement metrics' as included data, but does not disclose return format, file behavior, or any side effects beyond what annotations cover. Given the annotation coverage, a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action, output formats, and a use case. There is no redundant information or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool is simple with 3 optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose but omits details about limit semantics, default behavior, and what the exported file actually contains or returns. Without an output schema, the description should at least hint at return structure, which it does not. Overall, it's adequate but incomplete for an agent to use with full confidence.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only 'identifier' has a description). The description mentions JSON/CSV/Markdown, which maps to the format enum, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter (e.g., max 100) or clarify identifier's default. Since coverage is low, the description must compensate, and it does not adequately do so.

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 exports posts with engagement metrics to JSON, CSV, or Markdown files. It specifies a distinct verb ('Export') and resource ('posts'), and the file formats distinguish it from generic post retrieval tools like get_posts. The use-case 'analysing which content performed best' adds useful context.

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 'useful for analysing which content performed best' provides clear context for when to use this tool, indicating it's appropriate for performance analysis. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_posts or other export tools (e.g., export_profile), so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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