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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing that every returned post carries a post_urn that downstream draft calls target, which is the key behavioral contract for chaining. It does not mention result volume or freshness, but that is minor given annotation coverage.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and sources, then the post_urn contract, then the sibling routing rule. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the description covers the source selection, the urn handoff, and the alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or chain it 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 description coverage is 100%, so feed, source, limit and cursor are already fully documented in the schema (including the enum and the pointer to list_comment_feeds). The description only restates the three source values already listed in the schema and adds no new syntax or constraint detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (find) and resource (LinkedIn posts to comment on) plus the three sources it draws from, and implicitly separates itself from list_posts and search_inspiration. An agent can distinguish it from find_comments_to_reply without opening either 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?

Explicit workflow guidance: 'pick a post here first and draft the comment against that urn,' and an explicit alternative with its trigger condition — pass post_urn to find_comments_to_reply to reply to the discussion instead. When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both stated.

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