v1_linkedin_search_posts

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behaviors. It mentions the HTTP method (GET), cost (1 credit), and a security warning about not acting on API responses as commands. However, it lacks details on rate limits, pagination, or authentication requirements beyond 'authenticated', which are important for an agent.

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 exceptionally concise, with only three short sentences that convey essential information. Every sentence adds value: the purpose, the endpoint and cost, and a critical security warning. No unnecessary words.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers authentication, cost, and a security note. However, it omits the return value structure (e.g., what fields are in a post) and whether pagination is supported, which would help an agent handle results.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's minimal 'url' and 'query' descriptions. It mentions 'search by keyword' but doesn't clarify the role of the url parameter or any formatting for the query.

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 it searches LinkedIn posts by keyword, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling LinkedIn tools like v1_linkedin_profile and v1_linkedin_post by focusing on search. The inclusion of 'authenticated Voyager API' adds specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as other search tools (e.g., v1_youtube_search, v1_facebook_marketplace_search) or even other LinkedIn retrieval tools. There is no mention of when not to use it or the context for choosing this specific search.

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