Read LinkedIn Post

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it specifies the post must be 'visible', mentions 'bounded completeness coverage', and explains that reposts retain the wrapper and read the linked original as an additional bounded page. This gives the agent a clearer picture of what to expect without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences and front-loads the primary action. The first sentence packs a lot of detail without being verbose, and the second sentence succinctly covers the edge case of reposts. Every phrase contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description lists the major return categories (author/header, expanded text, links, media, reactions, visibility, timestamps, etc.) and covers repost behavior and bounded completeness. This is comprehensive for a read tool with readOnly and idempotent annotations. It provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 33% (only post_ref has a description). The description adds meaning for post_ref by explaining it can be activity, share, or ugc-post and is stable. However, it does not explain context_id or request_id, leaving those two required parameters without semantic guidance. The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource ('Read one exact visible LinkedIn post'), and distinguishes this from sibling search tools by emphasizing 'one exact' and requiring a 'stable activity, share, or ugc-post reference.' It clearly lists the returned data types, making the tool's 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 implies when to use this tool: when you have a stable post reference and need a single, detailed, visible post. It does not explicitly state exclusions (e.g., use search for lists) or name alternatives, but the schema's note that post_ref is 'returned by LinkedIn post search' provides clear context. The 'one exact' phrasing differentiates it from search and list tools.

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