Get comment

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavior: it requires a PAGE token, returns comment text inside an untrusted-content envelope, and reports whether the 7-day private-reply window remains open. This goes well beyond the structured metadata.

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 compact sentences, each earning its place: the core capability is front-loaded, the usage rationale is concrete, and the auth/security caveats are essential. No filler 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?

For a read-only tool with fully documented parameters and helpful annotations, the description covers the main inputs, the purpose, and key output aspects (comment text, replies, private-reply window). With no output schema, a bit more exact return-shape detail would push it to 5, but the description is already sufficient for correct invocation.

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 applies. The description's 'optionally with its replies' hints at reply_limit but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. No compensation is needed.

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 action ('Read one comment by ID'), the resource, and two distinguishing features (optional replies and private-reply-window check). This clearly separates it from siblings like facebook_get_post, facebook_list_comments, and facebook_private_reply.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: verify the CURRENT text before moderating, because comments can change between listing and action. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select the tool correctly.

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