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

The description discloses a critical side effect — 'Publishes immediately' — and adds a user-confirmation requirement, both of which are behavioral traits beyond the annotations (openWorldHint, idempotentHint false, destructiveHint false). This provides valuable context for a mutating action with no separate rate-limit or auth notes.

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 entire description is one tight sentence with the essential action and a critical warning front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition of schema data.

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 write action with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and a safety guideline (confirm first. However, it omits return-value expectations and any error conditions, which would help an agent fully understand the call outcome.

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 only 33%; the description adds meaning for organization_id ('as yourself or an organization') but does not explain post_urn or text beyond what their names imply. The core parameters are simple enough that the gap is minor.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Adds a comment to a post' — and clearly distinguishes identity modes ('as yourself or an organization'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like create_post, react_to_post, and delete_post without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

No explicit 'use this when' or alternative routing is provided; the intended scenario is implied by the tool name and action. The 'confirm with the user first' warning adds an operational guideline, but it does not explain when this tool should be preferred over react_to_post or create_post.

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

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

Annotations provide only openWorldHint, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds crucial behavioral details: it publishes publicly and immediately, requires user confirmation, converts hashtags into real ones, and escapes special characters. It also clarifies the organization_id API requirement. These go beyond the annotations and give the agent a realistic sense of side effects and constraints. No contradiction with 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the supported formats, then the critical public/immediate warning. No filler or repetition. Every sentence carries actionable information, and the most important user-confirmation warning is placed last for emphasis.

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 9 parameters, a rich schema, and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what the tool does, supported content types, the public/immediate nature, the need for user confirmation, and the organization caveat. It does not explain return values (no output schema), but that is not required. It adequately prepares the agent to call this tool correctly without missing critical safety or scope details.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that #hashtags become real and special characters are escaped (behavior of text), and that organization_id requires the Community Management API product. It also summarizes the three content modes (text, link, image) in plain language. These clarifications help the agent select parameters appropriately, though most details remain in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Publishes a post on LinkedIn as the authenticated member (or an organization).' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like linkedin_delete_post, linkedin_get_post, and linkedin_comment_on_post by focusing on creation. The mention of supporting text, link preview, or image adds specificity without ambiguity.

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 gives clear context: it is for publishing a post, and it explicitly warns 'This publishes publicly and immediately — confirm the final text with the user before calling.' This is a strong usage guideline. It also notes the organization option and its prerequisite (Community Management API product), which helps decide when to use it. It does not explicitly list exclusions (e.g., 'do not use for commenting'), but the sibling names make that implicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds value by stating the operation is irreversible and explicitly instructs confirming with the user first—a practical behavioral safeguard not encoded in the annotations. It also clarifies the ownership scope (you or your organization), which is additional context. No contradictions with 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 concise sentences. The first states the core action and scope; the second delivers the critical warning. Every word earns its place, and the most important caveat is front-loaded after the verb. No fluff or redundancy.

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 single-parameter destructive action, the description covers the essential operational context: what it does, who can do it, and the irreversibility warning. There is no output schema, which is typical for delete operations. It does not mention error handling or return values, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations already flagging destructiveness, this is adequately complete. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit guidance on what happens after a successful deletion (e.g., confirmation message), but that is not required for correct invocation.

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 already provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter post_urn, including a regex pattern and an example. The description does not add further parameter-specific details, but it does clarify that the post must be authored by the caller, which is contextual rather than parameter-level. Given the schema is self-sufficient, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Deletes'), the resource ('a post'), and the scope ('you (or your organization) authored'). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like linkedin_create_post, linkedin_get_post, and linkedin_list_posts by focusing solely on deletion. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and when it applies.

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 clear context for use (deleting an authored post) and a critical safety guideline ('Irreversible — confirm with the user first'). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but among the sibling tools, none other handles deletion, so the purpose alone sufficiently routes an agent. The confirmation warning is a strong usage directive.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds critical context about required OAuth permissions (r_member_social vs r_organization_social) that is not in the annotations. This directly helps an agent anticipate authorization failures. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the permission note is a concise, relevant addition. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (one param, read-only) and annotations cover safety. The description covers permissions, which is a key operational detail. However, the lack of output-format description and the weak parameter explanation (see parameter_semantics) leave minor gaps. Still, for a basic fetch, it is largely adequate.

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 for the post_urn parameter. It only repeats the phrase 'by URN', which adds no meaning beyond the parameter name itself. It does not explain what a URN looks like, how to obtain one, or any format nuances beyond the schema pattern. This is a significant 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 states a specific verb ('Fetches') and resource ('a single post') and specifies the key discriminator (by URN). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like linkedin_list_posts and linkedin_get_post_stats, and the intent is 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 gives clear context: use this when you have a post URN and need that specific post. It also notes permission prerequisites, which are important usage constraints. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., 'use list_posts to find URNs') or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific 'socialActions' detail, which is useful context about what is returned, but it does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or what happens if the post has no likes/comments.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, and the parenthetical 'socialActions' adds a useful API-level detail without bloating the text.

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 parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not mention what the response structure looks like or whether the summary includes counts, lists, or both, which an agent might need to know for downstream use.

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 does not explain the post_urn parameter beyond the schema's pattern, but the parameter is a single, self-explanatory identifier. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('like and comment summary of a post'), and the title reinforces the scope. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like linkedin_get_post, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from.

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 usage for retrieving post engagement stats, and the sibling list shows alternatives like linkedin_get_post and linkedin_list_posts. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus those alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety. The description adds the specific return fields and the purpose (verification), which is useful context beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations, but it doesn't mention rate limits or auth requirements; acceptable for a simple read.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. Front-loads what the tool returns, then gives the purpose. No unnecessary details or fluff.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value (basic profile fields and URN) and the intended use case. It could specify that these are the only fields returned, but 'basic profile' implies a defined set. Sufficient for an agent to call 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?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, baseline 4 applies when there are no parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter info; it correctly focuses on the return value.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('authenticated member's basic profile'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, email, picture, person URN). No overlap with sibling tools (all post/organization related), so distinction is 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?

Provides an explicit use case: 'Use this to verify the connection.' This tells the agent when to invoke it. Since there are no alternative profile tools among siblings, explicit exclusion isn't necessary, though it could mention when not to use (e.g., for detailed profile data) – minor gap.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it names the Community Management API and the required scope rw_organization_admin. It also clarifies the membership/administrator constraint, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the resource, the authentication constraint, and the API/scope context. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant repetition of the tool name or title.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter, the description includes the essential context: what is listed, who it is listed for, and the required scope. The role parameter is not mentioned in the description, but the schema documents it, so the overall tool definition is adequate.

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%, and the description does not mention the 'role' parameter at all. The schema's enum and default provide some self-documentation, but the description fails to explain how role filters the returned organizations. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate and does not.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and a clearly defined resource ('LinkedIn company pages the authenticated member administers'). It also names the underlying API and scope, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. Sibling tools are all profile/post actions, so there is no risk of confusion.

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 clearly states that this lists organizations the authenticated member administers, which implies it should be used when the agent needs the member's manageable LinkedIn organizations. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or conditions, but none of the sibling tools overlap with this listing function, so the context is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the auth scopes, which is useful behavioral context, but it doesn't add detail on pagination, ordering, or open-world semantics beyond what annotations already provide. The description is consistent with 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?

One sentence that states purpose and prerequisites without filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the auth requirement is compactly appended.

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 list tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and auth, but omits pagination parameter semantics and any indication of the returned post fields. The openWorldHint and readOnlyHint annotations cover safety, but the missing count/start explanation leaves some ambiguity for agents needing pagination.

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 only 33% – count and start have no descriptions in either schema or description. Only organization_id is described in the schema, and the description only alludes to it via auth scopes. The description fails to clarify what count and start mean for pagination.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('recent posts by an author'), and clarifies the default author ('yourself'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like linkedin_get_post (single post) and linkedin_create_post (write operation).

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?

Provides auth prerequisites (r_member_social vs r_organization_social) and mentions the default self behavior, giving clear context on when it can run. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope requirements act as a usage condition.

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

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the actor-identity nuance but does not go deeper into behavior like idempotence consequences, permission requirements, or what happens if the reaction already exists. No contradiction with 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action, the reaction types, and the actor scope efficiently.

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 operation with one required parameter and safety-relevant annotations already present, the description plus schema is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It does not describe the return value or error conditions, but that is not essential for this kind of action without an output schema.

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 schema already documents the reaction enum and organization_id meaning, covering 67% of parameters. The description reinforces the reaction categories and organization mode, but it does not add much semantic detail for post_urn beyond the schema's pattern constraint.

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 uses a specific verb ('Adds a reaction') with a clear target ('to a post') and actor scope ('as yourself or an organization'). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like linkedin_create_post, linkedin_delete_post, and linkedin_comment_on_post.

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 intended use is immediately clear: react to a LinkedIn post. The description also clarifies that the reaction can be performed as the user or an organization, which helps disambiguate the optional organization_id usage. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but no sibling overlaps with reacting to a post.

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