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

Annotations already establish readOnly/destructive=false, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real constraints — the post must be published, results are paginated, and for company pages the post urn must belong to that page. It does not describe the return shape in detail, but no output schema exists to cover that.

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; the core behavior and the default targeting are front-loaded, and the company-page constraint follows as a necessary caveat. 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?

For a paginated read tool with full schema coverage and safe annotations, the description covers scope, targeting, and the company-page constraint. The only soft spot is return-shape detail (which fields accompany each author), which has no output schema to fall back on.

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 parameter documentation is already handled and the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine semantics beyond the schema: the default personal-profile targeting and the requirement that a company-page post urn belongs to that page.

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 precise verb+resource ("Retrieves the comments and their authors for a published LinkedIn post") and adds the pagination scope. The resource is clearly separable from siblings like get_post_likers and get_post, so an agent can select it 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 explicit targeting guidance: personal profile by default, pass `organization` for a company page, and it routes the agent to list_organizations for valid values. It stops short of naming when a caller should prefer a different sibling tool, 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.