Get Feed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and dynamic nature. The description adds no extra behavioral traits beyond the core purpose. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also doesn't provide additional context like pagination or rate limits (though the parameter schema does).

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 sentence, front-loaded with action and resource, with no redundant information. It is concise and earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is sufficient to understand what the tool does. It could have added a note about the feed being personalized or real-time, but that is largely covered by the openWorldHint annotation. Minor gap: not explaining that the feed is for the authenticated user only, though that's clear from the description.

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 single parameter num_posts is fully described in the schema (coverage 100%), including default, range, and batch-loading behavior. The tool description itself adds no parameter details, but the schema does the heavy lifting, so a 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 specific action ('Get posts') and the exact resource ('the authenticated user's LinkedIn feed'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_person_profile or get_company_posts by explicitly limiting to the user's personal feed.

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 implies the tool is used to fetch the user's personal feed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., get_company_posts, search_conversations). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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