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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the workflow precondition (post must already be resolved) but says nothing about pagination despite an offset parameter, nor about the shape/limits of the comment list returned.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the body is dense and repeats the 'post ID / obtain with / never pass' block that already appears verbatim in the schema description. Several lines (the Comment ID sourcing chain) serve the resolution goal rather than this tool's invocation.

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 cross-provider resolver with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the input workflow adequately but omits pagination behavior and what the returned comment entries contain (which fields an agent can match a human reference against). Those gaps matter precisely because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 67%, and the description's post_id guidance largely duplicates the schema's own post_id text rather than adding new meaning. It says nothing about offset (the undescribed parameter) or about how account_id affects provider scoping, and it elaborates a 'Comment ID' block for something that is not an input parameter in the schema.

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?

The description states a specific action and goal: list comments on an already-resolved post so a human reference like 'the comment from Sarah' can be mapped to an exact comment_id. That distinguishes it from the raw provider listers (linkedin_list_post_comments, instagram_list_post_comments) that it names. The verb 'List' sits a little awkwardly under the name resolve_comment, but an agent can still tell what it does.

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?

It gives an explicit ordering ('First resolve post_id') and a clear downstream purpose (before replying/reacting/editing/deleting), plus concrete obtain-chains for the IDs it needs. It does not state when to skip this tool (e.g. when an exact comment_id is already known) or how it should be preferred over the provider-specific listers it cites.

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