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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add genuinely useful context beyond structured fields by flagging the returned content as user-generated and untrusted, which matters for prompt-injection safety. However, it says nothing about pagination, ordering, rate limits, or authentication, leaving real gaps for a read tool with a limit parameter.

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 short sentences with zero filler, purpose front-loaded and the trust caveat appended after it. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose and the untrusted-input caveat. It does not mention pagination behavior or the shape of returned comments, and with no output schema or annotations those gaps remain unfilled.

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%, with both user_id and limit (1-100) documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Get comments') scoped to a specific user, which distinguishes it from the broad search_comments sibling. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, but the 'by_user' scope plus the Instagram-specific naming versus the get_tt_comments_by_user variants makes the intent clear.

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 restates what the name already says and offers no when-to-use context, prerequisites, or comparison against overlapping siblings like search_comments. An agent gets no guidance on when this is preferable to a search-based lookup.

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