linkfetch_search_posts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses cache-first behavior, the live-on-account fallback gated on Cloud mode, 'within safety limits', and the concrete failure tokens linkedin_not_connected / extension_required. It omits rate-limit specifics, but the safety-limit reference and error codes are meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded before the caching/auth mechanics, with no filler. It is dense but every clause earns its place; only minor room to tighten the conditional clause.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the important non-obvious behavior: caching, account-scoped live fallback, safety limits, and failure modes. Result shape is left unstated, but the schema and absence of an output schema make that a minor gap.

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 all three parameters are already documented with types, defaults, and bounds. The description only echoes the keyword ('q') intent and adds nothing about the limit/offset paging semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (LinkedIn posts) with the retrieval dimension (by keyword), and the 'like the LinkedIn search bar' analogy pins the scope. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like linkfetch_search_people, linkfetch_search_companies, and linkfetch_get_profile_posts.

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 explains the cache-first resolution flow and the Cloud-mode fallback conditions, which implicitly tells the agent when a call will succeed. However, it never routes the agent between alternatives, e.g. linkfetch_get_profile_posts or linkfetch_get_company_posts for author-scoped posts, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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