instagram_comment_replies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts: pagination via cursor and a billing cost of 3 credits. It does not disclose rate limits or result caps, so it adds moderate value over 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?

Three short, front-loaded fragments with no filler. 'Replies under one comment.' is slightly redundant with the first sentence, keeping it just short of a perfect score.

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 read-only, single-required-param tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, paging, and cost adequately. It omits return-shape hints and any explicit relationship to instagram_comments, leaving a small but real gap.

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 all four parameters (url, cursor, shortcode, comment_id) are documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes cursor paging and adds nothing about parameter format or precedence, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (get replies to an Instagram comment) and clarifies scope with 'Replies under one comment.' It implicitly distinguishes itself from instagram_comments (top-level comments) but never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation rests on inference.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the natural alternative (instagram_comments) for fetching the parent comments. The reader must infer that this tool is for drilling into a comment thread after obtaining a comment_id.

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