LinkedIn MCP Assistant

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions scheduling and optional media, but lacks critical details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether the schedule can be modified after creation. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without redundancy. It front-loads the main action and includes essential details (future scheduling, optional media) in a compact form, with every word earning 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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 3 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects) and output details. For a scheduling tool with mutation, more information would be beneficial for safe use.

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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optionally including media' and 'future date and time', but does not provide additional semantics like format examples or constraints not in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Schedule a text post for LinkedIn') with the resource ('LinkedIn post') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'publish_linkedin_post' by specifying future scheduling. It explicitly mentions optional media inclusion, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('at a specific future date and time') and implies an alternative by contrasting with 'publish_linkedin_post' (which likely publishes immediately). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name all alternatives among siblings.

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