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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the mutating/external nature is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the annotations: it consumes the daily comment quota and the content becomes publicly visible, which is the kind of side-effect disclosure that matters for a write tool. It stops short of explaining what happens when the quota is exhausted (e.g., pointing at get_account_quotas), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 core action, then the disambiguation, then the caveats. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers scope, alternative, quota and visibility, but omits what to do on quota exhaustion or auth failure, the only real gap for a write tool with sibling quota-inspection tools available.

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% for all four parameters, including a detailed idempotency_key explanation, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no format for post_url_or_urn, no note that account_id comes from list_accounts), which matches the baseline 3.

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 ('Post a comment on a LinkedIn post') plus the acting principal ('on behalf of the connected account'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling reply_comment, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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 the when ('write a new top-level comment on a post'), the when-not with the named alternative ('to answer an existing comment use reply_comment'), and operational caveats (daily quota, public text, preview with the user). Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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