linkedin_get_posts

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

Annotations already capture the read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive nature. The description adds behavioral context by naming the sources (profile/feed), the content included, and implies recent chronological ordering. No contradiction exists.

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 only two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and use cases following. Every sentence adds value with no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 simple read-only nature, the description is complete: it covers sources, return fields, and use cases, while annotations address safety. The schema documents all parameters, so no output schema is necessary to understand the tool's behavior.

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 schema provides 100% coverage of parameters with useful descriptions (limit, source, identifier). The tool description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already explains, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Read recent posts') and resource ('a profile's activity or from the home feed'), and specifies the returned fields (text, author, engagement metrics, post type). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_post by emphasizing lists of recent posts rather than a single 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 description provides concrete use cases: 'review what someone posts about before engaging, or to audit your own posting history.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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