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

Annotations only declare the read-only safety profile; the description adds pagination behavior, reply nesting, the fact that from/to filters top-level only while in-range comments still return full replies, and a platform-specific failure mode (LinkedIn 405 for profiles connected before 2026-10-28). This is behavior an agent could not infer from annotations or schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return shape before caveats; every sentence carries information. The final LinkedIn sentence is dense and long, but each clause is load-bearing rather than padding.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the paginated top-level-with-replies structure. Combined with the platform-support and LinkedIn connection-age caveats, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly or know why it would fail.

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% and already explains that from/to filter on when PostProxy received the comment rather than platform posted_at. The description's 'filter by when PostProxy received the comment with from/to' largely restates that, adding no new syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 scoped to 'a published post', which cleanly separates it from comments_get (single comment) and profile_comments_list (profile-level comments). The return shape ('paginated top-level comments with nested replies') is stated in the same breath, so an agent knows what it gets 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?

Gives clear conditions for the date filter and explicit exclusion conditions ('Not all platforms support comments', LinkedIn personal-profile posts have none). It doesn't name a sibling alternative for the single-comment case, which keeps it below a 5.

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