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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing exclusions (hidden/held/account's own comments), sort order (newest first), platform default (all), and the full shape of each returned item. The main omission is pagination/limit behavior and the cost of the 100-item default, which matters for a read over social APIs.

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?

Effects are front-loaded in the first clause, the return shape is a compact enumerated list, and the two closing sentences are operational advice. No sentence is redundant or padding.

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 missing output schema is fully compensated by the inline item enumeration, and the annotations already cover safety. The gaps are the undocumented `limit`/`only_hinted` arguments, which leave the agent guessing about paging and whether hint filtering is available.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and only partly discharges it: `days` ('last `days`') and `platforms` ('ig|fb|yt (default all)') are explained, but `limit` and `only_hinted` are never mentioned, and `only_hinted` is genuinely non-inferable despite `complaint_hint` appearing in the item list.

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 with precise scoping: top-level, unanswered comments, newest first, across ig|fb|yt. The word '[read]' plus the explicit filters make it trivially distinguishable from siblings like comments_send_complaint_replies and list_comments_inbox.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite ('Run sync_post_comments first for fresh data') and sets the expectation that the tool does not classify ('Read the texts yourself to decide which are complaints'). It does not name an explicit alternative for the adjacent jobs (e.g. list_comments_inbox vs chats_collect_complaints), so the guidance is strong but not complete.

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