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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower; the description still adds ordering ('newest first'), return shape (reply under each comment, moderation attached), exclusion of disconnected/moved pages, and the non-obvious caveat that moderation lives in `moderation`, not the reply's `status`. That last point is a genuine behavioral clarification not present in structured fields.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: scope, ordering, exclusions, then filters. The opening line repeats the title verbatim, which is minor waste, but the remaining sentences each carry information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-shape burden and does so adequately (reply nested under each comment, moderation field semantics, ordering). Pagination and error codes are handled in the schema. Slightly thin on what other fields a comment record contains, but sufficient to call correctly.

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 coverage is 83%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining what the moderation_status values actually select ('hidden' lists everything hidden now by AI, teammate or platform; 'kept' lists what the AI checked and left visible) — meaning the enum alone does not convey. platform and post_id are also described in prose.

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 specific verb and resource ('List an agent's comments') and immediately narrows scope: Facebook/Instagram comments on the agent's connected pages, newest first, with the reply and its moderation. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_comment (single item) and hide_comment/unhide_comment (mutations).

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 concrete filtering guidance for moderation_status, platform and post_id, and explains the semantics of the two filter values ('hidden' vs 'kept'), plus an exclusion rule (comments of disconnected or moved pages are omitted). It stops short of explicitly contrasting with get_comment or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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