get_media_comments

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

Annotations only establish readOnly and openWorld; the description adds real behavioral detail: newest-first ordering, replies excluded but counted, reply_count_is_partial semantics, has_more for additional pages, and Instagram-side exclusions (age-gated media, hidden comments). These are exactly the caveats an agent needs to interpret partial results.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then usage, args and returns in a scannable layout. The Returns section partly restates what the output schema already carries, which is the only redundancy; the reply_count_is_partial explanation is worth the space.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description covers entry point, argument bounds, result shape, pagination, and the Instagram-side blind spots. Combined with the output schema and readOnly annotation, nothing needed to invoke or interpret a call is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameters, and it does: limit gets a range and default ('1-500 (default 50)') that the schema lacks, and media_id gets a provenance hint pointing to list_recent_media. The media_id definition itself ('The Instagram media ID') is thin, so it stops just short of full compensation.

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 ('Get top-level comments on one post or reel') plus ordering ('newest first'), which immediately separates it from siblings like reply_to_comment, hide_comment and get_media_insights. The scope qualifier 'top-level' and the note that replies are 'not listed, only counted' further sharpen the boundary.

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 explicit when-to-use ('read audience feedback or find comment IDs to reply to / moderate') and points at the prerequisite source ('Get media_id from list_recent_media'). It also states exclusions — replies are not returned, and comments hidden via hide_comment or on age-gated media are absent — so an agent knows when this call will under-deliver.

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