v1_linkedin_company_posts

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context: pagination requirements and a safety warning about API responses. However, it does not specify whether the operation is read-only or any authentication needs beyond the implied guest/Voyager modes.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a cost note and a warning. It front-loads the purpose and adds essential details without redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers the core functionality, pagination, and a safety caveat. It could be more complete by hinting at the response structure, but it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, but the parameter description is minimal ('url'). The tool description adds that the URL should refer to a LinkedIn company, which provides some context beyond the schema. Baseline 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 tool gets a LinkedIn company's posts and distinguishes the pagination behavior for page 1 vs deeper pages. It is specific to company posts, differentiating it from sibling tools like v1_linkedin_profile or v1_linkedin_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 mentions pagination nuance and cost, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like v1_linkedin_search_posts. It does not specify prerequisites or excluded use cases.

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