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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description redundantly restates read-only but adds two genuinely new facts: results are public data, and there is a stated cost model of 1 credit per result with a 1-credit minimum per request. It does not cover authentication needs or how pagination interacts with billing on large pulls.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the safety profile, then the cost. Every sentence carries information; there is no filler.

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 four-parameter read tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies the one thing the structured fields cannot: the credit cost. Minor gap in not clarifying whether replies are included or how credits scale with the start offset on deep 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 100%, with count ranges, start offset, sortOrder enum meanings, and accepted activityUrn formats all documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'Fetch the comment thread on a LinkedIn post.' That is enough to distinguish it from linkedin_get_post_reactions and linkedin_get_profile_comments, which operate on different object types, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative. It does not say, for example, to use linkedin_get_post_detail for the post body or linkedin_get_profile_comments for a person's comments, so the agent has to infer the boundary from the tool name and schema alone.

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