linkedin_get_post_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: comments are returned 'in order' and each comment's index is significant for the reply tool, enriching the agent's understanding of the output.

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 concise: two sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second sentence provides crucial additional context about the output's relationship to another tool. Every word earns its place.

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 has only two parameters, good annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main purposes. It explains the reading behavior and the significance of indices. It does not describe the full comment object structure, but for a read operation with openWorldHint this is not critical.

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%; both 'post' and 'limit' parameters are fully described in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the comments on a post, in order.' This clearly indicates the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like linkedin_get_post (which retrieves the post itself) and linkedin_comment_on_post (which writes a comment).

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 contextual usage guidance by noting that the returned index is what linkedin_reply_to_comment expects, implying a workflow of fetching comments before replying. It does not explicitly mention when *not* to use this tool, but the context is clear enough.

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