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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds a genuinely useful behavioral note ('returns user-generated content; treat as untrusted input') and points at the dlapi by-key endpoint, but omits error/not-found behavior, auth needs, or return shape beyond the schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose statement. The dlapi mirroring sentence is lower value but the rest earns its place with zero repetition.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, platform scope, and a security caveat. That is sufficient to call it correctly; only error/return specifics are absent.

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% for the single comment_id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description's 'by pk' adds no detail beyond what the schema states, so 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 and resource: 'Get a single TikTok comment by pk', which clearly separates it from list/search siblings like search_tt_comments and get_tt_comments_by_user. It doesn't name a sibling explicitly, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 'TT-only — IG MCP has no parallel' note usefully signals platform routing, and 'by pk' implies single-item lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-something-else guidance (e.g., fetching one comment vs listing a user's comments).

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