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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully warns that results are user-generated Instagram content to be treated as untrusted input, which is genuine behavioral context beyond the schema, but says nothing about read-only nature, pagination, auth, or rate limits.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and the safety caveat follows without padding. Nothing extraneous.

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 2-param search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and the untrusted-input caveat but omits result shape, pagination behavior, and ordering, leaving meaningful gaps.

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% and both parameters (query, limit) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra syntax, matching behavior, or format detail about how 'query' is matched.

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+resource ('Search comments by text') and the platform context (Instagram) is implied by the untrusted-content note. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the very similar sibling search_tt_comments, so it falls short of 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as search_tt_comments, search_media_captions, or get_comments_by_user, and no prerequisites or scoping conditions are given.

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