linkedin_get_posts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a potential authorization requirement ('may require additional API permissions') and scope (authenticated user), but does not mention read-only nature, return structure, or error behavior. Adds some value beyond schema.

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?

A single sentence contains the core purpose and a permission caveat. No fluff, no repetition, and it is front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It states what it gets and notes a key prerequisite (permissions). Missing details like return format are not critical given the simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%: the 'count' parameter is fully described in the input schema with default and max. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'authenticated user's recent LinkedIn posts', clearly distinguishing from sibling create/delete tools. It is unambiguous and defines exactly what the tool returns.

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?

Description implies usage for reading the user's own posts, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions compared to sibling tools like create/delete. There is no mention of alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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