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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuine context beyond them: per-channel response shape, the postPlatformId/commentActions fields, and explicit unsupported-platform notices. It stops short of noting pagination or rate behavior, but the coverage is strong for a 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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and response structure before usage. Every sentence carries information, though the last usage sentence overlaps somewhat with the routing already implied earlier.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still sketches the per-channel/per-comment structure and the commentActions field. Combined with platform caveats and usage routing, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 the schema already documents postId and commentsLimit (including default and max). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (list), resource (comments and reactions), and scope (one published post, per channel, read from each platform). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools reply_to_comment and moderate_comment by naming them as consumers of the returned ids.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when the user asks who commented... or needs a comment's id to reply to or moderate it') and routes to the sibling tools that need that id. It also documents platform exclusions (TikTok, Pinterest, Google Business, Telegram, Snapchat), which is real when-not guidance.

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