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

Annotations already cover the read-only/non-destructive safety profile, but the description adds platform constraints (LinkedIn only permits company page posts), a return-shape caveat (commenters come back as LinkedIn ids, not names, because the API withholds them), and a prompt-injection warning to treat third-party comment text as data. These are substantive traits not present in the structured fields.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and then the constraint and the safety note. Every sentence carries information, though the final sentence is packed with two distinct ideas (platform restriction and alternative tool) that could be cleaner split.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (text, time, likes, replies, commenter id) and explaining the id-vs-name limitation. Combined with the usage restriction, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 both 'id' and 'limit' are already fully documented in the schema; the description adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('lists the comments on one published company page post') plus the exact fields returned, and explicitly contrasts itself with get_post_stats for the comment count. An agent can distinguish it from every sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition (only company page posts) and an explicit failure case (personal profile post -> supported is false), then names the alternative tool (get_post_stats) for the count use case. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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