Read LinkedIn Post Discussion

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive semantics. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: one-cursor-page pagination, bounded nested replies, stable references, exact author identities, and truncation coverage. This goes well beyond the annotation hints and helps the agent predict behavior without contradictions.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Read one cursor page') and then packs in necessary details. It is dense but information-bearing; no filler words. Slightly long but appropriate for the complexity.

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 presence of an output schema and helpful annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: pagination, ordering, field coverage, and limits. It doesn't mention error cases or authentication, but those are likely handled elsewhere. Overall, it is complete enough for a read-only list operation.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate. It does so implicitly by explaining the nature of the data ('one cursor page', 'relevant/recent ordering', 'bounded nested replies'), which clarifies the role of cursor, sort_by, and max_replies_per_comment. It does not explicitly name parameters but provides enough semantic context to infer their purpose.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one cursor page of visible top-level comments and bounded nested replies'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like comment creation or post retrieval. It also enumerates the exact data fields returned, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 establishes clear context: it reads a page of comments with ordering, pagination, and bounded replies. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or specify when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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