Get Feed

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It does add the context that the feed belongs to the authenticated user, which is useful. However, it offers no additional behavioral details like rate limits or pagination behavior, beyond what the schema's parameter description already provides.

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 clear sentence with no filler words. It directly states the purpose without redundant information, making it 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?

For a simple read-only feed-fetching tool with strong annotations and a complete schema, the description covers the essential scope. The openWorldHint annotation and output schema handle dynamic content and return format. It could be more explicit about the absence of filters, but given the tool's simplicity, it is adequately complete.

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 fully documents the single parameter num_posts with range, default, and batching caveat, achieving 100% description coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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?

The description clearly identifies the action (get), the resource (posts), and the scope (the authenticated user's LinkedIn feed). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_inbox or get_company_posts, which target different content types.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as get_company_posts or get_sidebar_profiles. There are no usage scenarios, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent without selection criteria.

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