comment_on_post

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that this is a public write action, whether authentication is required, whether comments can be edited or deleted, or what the outcome/return value looks like. The algorithm timing note is the only additional behavioral context.

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 tightly written sentences: the action comes first, and the timing rationale follows. There is no redundant detail or 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 simple three-parameter tool, the purpose, actor, and timing are clearly covered and the schema fully documents parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not address what to expect after invocation or what prerequisites/limitations exist.

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%, and all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description only restates the 'as' choice ('profile or company page') and adds no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 concrete verb and object: 'Comment on a LinkedIn post,' and further scopes it by actor ('as your profile or a company page'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like post_to_profile and get_recent_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 second sentence provides explicit timing guidance: 'Useful right after publishing — LinkedIn's feed algorithm weighs early engagement heavily.' It gives clear context for when the tool is valuable, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases.

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