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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations cannot express: the supported platform surface and the fact that social_id feeds downstream comment lookups. It says nothing about pagination or ordering, however.

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 with no padding, which is appropriately sized. But the lead sentence is a verbless fragment and the sentences are not ordered by importance — platform exclusions occupy the prime slot while the core listing behavior is only implied.

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?

With no output schema and a read-only, idempotent list operation, the annotation coverage carries much of the load. Still, an agent is left without guidance on the required account_id, on cursor/limit pagination mechanics, or on the relationship between the returned social_id and the comments tools.

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 0% for all three parameters, so the description must carry the burden and does not: account_id (required), limit, and cursor are never explained. Worse, it references "social_id", a parameter that does not exist in the input schema, which can mislead an agent into supplying an invalid argument.

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 identifies the resource (posts) and the platforms (LinkedIn or Instagram), but it is a noun phrase with no verb, so it never explicitly states that it lists posts belonging to the authenticated account. It also fails to distinguish this tool from plausible siblings such as list_user_posts or list_scheduled_posts.

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 only guidance is a platform-availability exclusion ("Not available on Messenger, X, or WhatsApp") and a cryptic note about using social_id for comments. There is no statement of when to choose this tool over list_user_posts or list_scheduled_posts, and no prerequisites such as the required account_id.

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