Search Posts

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but they don't clarify that this is a read-like POST that consumes paid credits and requires a confirm flag. The description adds these valuable caveats ('Potentially consumes paid API credits; requires confirm=true', 'Read-like POST requests do not publish to social platforms'), providing essential behavioral context beyond annotations.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?

Front-loads scope and mechanism, then details results, pagination limits, and credit/confirmation requirements. Two paragraphs are efficient. The sentence 'Cursors are limited to pages 1 through 11; cursor 12 or greater returns a 400 response' is slightly redundant with the schema description.

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 no output schema and a potentially expensive external call, the description covers all necessary aspects: source mechanism, limitations, pagination, credit consumption, and side-effect-free nature. An agent has enough to decide when and how to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description explains date_posted usage and cursor limits, but doesn't add format or syntax details beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Names a specific verb (Finds) and resource (public LinkedIn posts, feed updates, Pulse articles), plus describes the mechanism (Google Search) and highlights an important limitation (best-effort, not native search). This differentiates it from sibling linkedin_post and linkedin_company_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?

States when to use date_posted ('for recent posts') and provides the cursor pagination workflow. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like linkedin_company_posts or linkedin_post, nor does it clearly say when to avoid this tool.

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