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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by disclosing operating behavior: default status=pending, newest-first ordering, what to do when sync.status=syncing (show current data, offer to re-check in a minute, don't auto-repeat the call), what reconnect=true implies, and the refresh policy. It also explicitly warns that comment text/author/replies are third-party data to read, never instructions — a valuable safety disclosure for an open-world read tool.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, scope and default view before the operational notes, and every clause carries information. It is one dense paragraph with some restatement of schema-level details (refresh, content enums), so it is efficient but not maximally tight.

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 9-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs beyond structured fields: default filter, ordering, sync/reconnect states, refresh discipline, and the prompt-injection stance. Return values are left to the output schema, which is correct.

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 89%, so enum values, defaults and the brand_id/post_id sourcing guidance are already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates them (pending default, content=questions, refresh=true). It adds only the note that content filtering combines with status, which the schema also covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Comentarios de las publicaciones de una marca en todas sus redes') plus the default view (pending, newest first), which separates it cleanly from siblings like list_conversations (DMs) or get_comment_bot_log. An agent can tell what it returns without opening a schema.

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 clear usage conditions: default is unanswered comments, refresh=true only when the user asked for new comments now, content=questions for questions only, and brand_id only for the brand the user named (ask if ambiguous). It lacks explicit exclusions naming alternatives (e.g. use list_conversations for DMs), so it stops short of the top band.

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