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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, signaling a safe read operation. The description adds that it processes recent posts with a time window, but does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or what happens if no posts are found. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds limited behavioral context.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids redundancy with the schema, mentioning only the key parameter context. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more explicit about usage scenarios.

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?

The description is complete given the tool's moderate complexity, the 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema. It covers the essential purpose and the key parameter (since_hours) that affects behavior. The annotations cover safety, so no additional safety disclosure is needed. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call the tool 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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds the meaning of 'account_id' (the LinkedIn account to act on from list_accounts) and clarifies that 'since_hours' limits to posts in the last N hours, which adds value beyond the schema's terse descriptions. However, this is marginal since the schema already covers most semantics.

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 clearly states the tool fetches likers and/or commenters for the account's own recent posts, distinguishing it from the sibling 'user_posts' which likely lists posts, and 'scrape_post' which likely scrapes a single post. The specific resource ('account's own recent posts') and actions (fetch likers/commenters) are well defined.

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 explains the function and the 'since_hours' parameter for limiting recency, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like 'scrape_post' or 'user_posts'. It implies use for engagement analysis on own posts, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives. However, the clarity of 'own recent posts' helps differentiate.

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