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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses page size (up to 100), credit cost (7, cached or not), refund on failure, caching behavior, and the fresh-flag caveat. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs before invoking a paid call.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and return shape, then usage, then the param rule and cost. Dense but every sentence earns its place; the returned-field list is slightly long but informative.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return fields, pagination (100 per page, cursor), the two query modes, and the cost/refund model. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a critical constraint not enforced by the schema (required is empty): 'Give exactly one of url or comment_url.' It also clarifies that url's returned comment `url` opens the post at that comment, adding meaning beyond the raw pattern.

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 (fetch) and resource (comments on one LinkedIn post), and enumerates the returned fields, distinguishing it clearly from siblings like get_linkedin_post_reactions and get_linkedin_posts. The agent can identify the tool without opening the 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?

Explains the two modes ('Give exactly one of url or comment_url' and 'With comment_url, the replies to one comment') and the use case ('see who engages with a post and what they say'). No explicit comparison against alternative siblings, but the invocation condition is clear.

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