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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope constraints ('Company Pages only') and a matching requirement (start/length must match the plain caption/firstComment span), but it does not disclose query behavior, pagination, authentication, or result shape.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence is dense but contains critical downstream usage guidance. No filler or repeated schema info.

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 minimal parameter metadata, the description carries a heavy burden. It gives the core action and a downstream tip but is missing essential context about what the query searches, what the response contains, and how results are paginated or limited.

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?

The schema has two required parameters (accountId, query) with no descriptions. The description only loosely implies accountId identifies a Company Page and query searches for mentions; it does not explain what the query matches against, allowed values, or how the mentioned 'type, urn, displayText' fields relate to the request parameters.

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 ('Search') and resource ('Page followers for LinkedIn @mentions'), with an explicit scope ('Company Pages only'). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools such a linkedin_search_geo_locations and linkedin_search_organizations.

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 contextual guidance ('Company Pages only') and shows how to use the returned data by passing type, urn, displayText into captionMentions or firstCommentMentions on create_post. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or name sibling tools.

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