List comments

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds critical non-obvious details: user tokens silently return an empty list, comment text arrives in an untrusted-content envelope, and comments are newest-first by default. These are exactly the behaviors an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, filter options, auth caveat, and a security instruction. There is no filler and no redundant restatement of schema fields.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description tells the agent what is returned, how to shape the result, what permissions are required, and how to handle untrusted content. Combined with the fully documented schema and annotations, nothing critical is missing for a list operation.

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?

The input schema already documents all seven parameters with 100% coverage, so the description need not compensate. It restates the filter and include_summary semantics and the default ordering, but adds no meaning materially beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a precise operation and resource: list comments on a post, photo, video, or another comment. This clearly separates it from single-comment and mutation tools like facebook_get_comment, facebook_reply_to_comment, and facebook_hide_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?

It gives concrete guidance on when to use filter values and include_summary, and explicitly states the required token type with a warning that user tokens yield an empty list. It does not name sibling alternatives, but the context is sufficient to identify when this tool applies.

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