Publish a LinkedIn post

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.