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

Beyond the annotations, it reveals that posting is subject to budget and business-hours gates, that bypassing removes all LinkedIn safety limits, and that this can lead to account flagging or restriction. It also explains automatic account selection, which is unobservable from annotations.

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 action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds necessary operational or safety context. The warning is repeated for emphasis but earns its place given the risk of disabling LinkedIn protections.

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 covers required context, parameter variants, conditional account selection, and safety implications—all essential for a side-effecting tool with no schema and no output schema. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

Despite an empty input schema, the description documents platform, target (profileUrl or leadId), commentText, accountId, and bypass behavior, including where to source accountId and commentText. The sole-source parameter documentation fully compensates for schema absence.

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 opening sentence names a specific action and resource: commenting on a lead's most recent post with provided text. Combined with 'platform is required (currently LinkedIn)', it clearly distinguishes this from siblings like like_post, reply_to_comment, and send_message.

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 gives clear conditional usage: which target forms are accepted, when accountId must be provided, and that commentText can come from campaignstack_craft_comment. It lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance against sibling tools, but the context is unambiguous.

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