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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, but the description never explains that this launches a long-running Builder task, whether it returns a task id or immediate results, or what state it mutates. The one concrete fact offered, the fixed collector identifier, is the only behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 a single long run-on sentence overloaded with synonym lists in two languages (评论, comments, 采集, 抓取, 爬取, 获取, 提取) intended for keyword matching rather than reading. It is verbose and not front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 destructive, non-idempotent task-submission tool with no output schema, the description omits what happens after submission, how results are retrieved (siblings scraper_task_status/result exist), and how it differs from the Facebook post scraper. The schema covers parameters, but the operational picture is incomplete.

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 every parameter including url, comments_sort, limit_records, and get_all_replies is already documented with defaults and enums. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it triggers on Facebook post comment scraping and submits a Builder task, so the resource (Facebook comments) is identifiable. But the phrasing is trigger-oriented and keyword-stuffed rather than a clean verb+resource statement, and it never distinguishes this tool from the sibling facebook_post or the other *_comment tools beyond the platform name.

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 implies when to invoke (user needs Facebook post comments combined with collect/scrape verbs) and names the fixed collector id, which is useful implementation detail. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use or guidance against the sibling facebook_post scraper, so routing between them is left to inference.

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