list_member_posts

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It does not disclose pagination behavior, filtering by date (published_after), or the scope of posts (only authored by member?). The description is too sparse to convey important behavioral details.

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, making it concise, but it lacks critical information. Conciseness should not come at the expense of completeness. It is structured as a simple statement, which is adequate but not exemplary.

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 that the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, filtering capabilities, or any side effects. The description provides only the bare minimum for understanding the tool's function.

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 input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no explanation for any parameter. The agent cannot infer the meaning or usage of 'page_size', 'include_raw', 'published_after', or 'limit' from the description.

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 action 'list' and the resource 'posts/share records' for the 'authenticated LinkedIn member', which gives a good sense of what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_member_posts' or 'enrich_member_posts_with_engagement', so it loses some points for lack of distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about appropriate invocation. It simply states the action without any usage boundaries.

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