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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: moderation.status becomes unhidden, auto-hide will not hide it again, the AI reason is preserved, and specific error/retry semantics are documented. This goes well beyond the structured fields and is highly useful for an agent.

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 front-loaded and each section (effect, errors, retry guidance) is relevant. However, it begins by repeating the title verbatim before elaborating, which is a small redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description covers the state change, side effects, error codes, and retry behavior thoroughly. An agent has enough information to invoke this tool correctly and interpret common outcomes.

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%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show a hidden comment') and clarifies the platform scope ('on Facebook or Instagram'). The hidden-comment state and 'again' wording distinguish it from hide_comment and from generic comment retrieval tools.

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 gives clear context: use this to show a hidden comment again, and the 422 comment_not_hidden error implies the prerequisite that the comment must currently be hidden. It does not explicitly name alternatives like hide_comment or get_comment, so it falls short of a full when/when-not guide.

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