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 clear. The description adds context about returning threads and comments/replies from followers, which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, or platform aggregation details.

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 description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by a clarifying detail about return content. No waste or redundancy.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only list operation with no output schema, but the description explains what it returns (comment threads with replies). It lacks details like default limit or filtering options, but these are covered by the well-documented schema. Given the simplicity and annotation support, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 parameters (limit, status, platform) are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any supplementary meaning to these parameters, only reaffirming the general purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('comment threads on your published posts'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_inbox_summary or list_conversations. It also specifies the scope ('across all platforms'), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage through context ('on your published posts') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_inbox_summary or list_conversations. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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