Get comment

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it names the required token type and scopes (pages_read_engagement, plus pages_read_user_content for visitor comments), discloses the 7-day private-reply window, and warns that text comes back in an untrusted-content envelope. That is exactly the security and timing context an agent needs before acting on the result.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The core action leads, then usage rationale, then the auth and trust caveats in decreasing order of importance. Dense but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing what comes back: the comment text wrapped in an untrusted-content envelope and a private-reply-possible flag tied to the 7-day window. Auth requirements are covered, so an agent can call this without further discovery.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic weight: it explains that replies are only included 'optionally', matching the schema's note that omitting reply_limit skips the replies edge entirely. The profile and comment_id parameters are left to the schema, which documents them well.

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 ("Read one comment by ID") plus two scoping modifiers: optional inline replies and the private-reply eligibility flag. This clearly separates it from facebook_list_comments and the mutation siblings like facebook_edit_comment.

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?

Explicitly prescribes a use case: verify the CURRENT text before moderating, because a comment can be edited or deleted between a listing and an action. That gives a real when-to-use rule, but it never names the alternative tool to call instead for bulk reads (facebook_list_comments) or says when not to use it.

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