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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the operation reads public data only, and it costs 1 credit per result with a 1-credit minimum per request — a cost model an agent cannot find anywhere 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 short sentences: purpose first, then the read-only guarantee, then the pricing constraint. Nothing is redundant or buried, and each sentence contributes a distinct fact.

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 three-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, and billing, while the schema fully documents inputs and pagination. It stops short of describing what a returned comment contains (post context, timestamps, counts), which would help an agent judge result usefulness.

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, cursor, and publicId all self-documented including range, default, and pagination advice. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 ('List comments made by a LinkedIn profile'), which lets an agent distinguish it from linkedin_get_post_detail or linkedin_get_posts_from_profile. It does not, however, explicitly separate itself from the closely-named sibling linkedin_get_activity_comments, so the agent must infer the difference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent must infer from the name that this is for comments authored by a user rather than comments on a given post, which is a real ambiguity among the LinkedIn siblings.

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