harvest_get_profile_comments

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It adds a crucial behavioral constraint—that at least one of profile or profileId must be provided—which is not enforced by the schema's empty required list. However, it does not disclose the return format, pagination behavior, or confirm the read-only nature of the operation, leaving gaps in what the agent can expect.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and the key requirement. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 optional params, no output schema), the description is minimal but covers the essential identifier requirement. However, it lacks clarity on the scope of 'comments' (by vs. on the profile) and does not mention pagination or response characteristics, leaving the agent with unresolved questions that annotations or a fuller description could address.

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 already covers all five parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying a logical relationship between profile and profileId—namely that one is required—which the schema's optional flags do not convey. This is meaningful semantic information for correct invocation.

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 description clearly states the action ('Get comments') and resource ('LinkedIn profile'), making the tool's basic purpose unmistakable. It also differentiates from sibling tools by referencing profile-level comments rather than post or reaction-level data, though it does not explicitly clarify whether these are comments authored by the profile or received on its posts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like harvest_get_post_comments or harvest_get_comment_replies. It only states a prerequisite ('requires at least one of profile or profileId'), which is a constraint but not a usage guideline, so agents receive no context for selection.

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