get_profile_posts

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 adds useful context: returns posts with engagement metrics (likes, comments, shares), mentions caching behavior via 'use_cache', and implies a read-only operation ('Get'). However, it lacks details on permissions (e.g., public vs. private profiles), rate limits, error handling, or pagination. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but could be more comprehensive for a tool with potential access restrictions.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a structured 'Args' section with clear parameter explanations, and ends with return value info. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args' label is slightly redundant. It's efficient with minimal waste.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well and mentions return metrics, but lacks context on authentication, error cases, or sibling differentiation. The output schema exists (not shown here), so the description needn't detail return values extensively, but more behavioral context would help.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters: 'profile_id' as 'LinkedIn public ID or URN', 'limit' with default and max values, and 'use_cache' explaining its purpose. This goes beyond the bare schema (which only shows types and defaults) by clarifying formats and constraints. However, it doesn't detail parameter interactions or edge cases.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get posts from a specific LinkedIn profile' with the verb 'Get' and resource 'posts from a specific LinkedIn profile'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_my_posts' (personal posts) and 'get_feed' (general feed), but doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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. It doesn't mention siblings like 'get_my_posts' for the user's own posts or 'get_feed' for a broader feed. There's no context about prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or exclusions (e.g., private profiles). Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly guided.

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