Get comments

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses billing semantics ('units of $0.001 at list price; a call that fails is not billed') and per-platform unit costs, which is genuinely useful context an agent can't get from annotations. It stops short of describing return shape or rate limits.

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 purpose sentence, then a compact per-platform table, then pagination and cost notes. Every line carries actionable information with no filler.

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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers invocation for all six platforms, pagination, and cost. The notable gap is that it never characterizes the returned comment data, which for a read tool would help an agent interpret results.

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 schema defines params as a free-form additionalProperties object, so without the description an agent would have no idea what keys are legal. The description enumerates the exact accepted param names per platform and flags required ones with '*', adding substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 the resource (comments) and distinguishes three retrieval modes keyed to parameters: post comments, a comment's replies, or an account's comments. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_social_post or list_social_posts, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 explicitly tells the agent how to select each mode (params.post vs params.comment vs username) and how to paginate ('call again with params = { cursor } alone'). What's missing is any statement of when to prefer this over sibling tools or 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.