list_comments

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

Goes well past the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the permission requirement ('Pro plan or higher plus posts:read') and, importantly, that YouTube and TikTok are hard-refused rather than returning an empty list — an error mode an agent would otherwise misread as 'no data'. It also explains why those platforms are off, so the refusal is understood as intentional.

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 scope and platform list, then the two modes, then the refusal behavior — a logical order with no filler sentences. The closing line about platforms staying off until reviewed is mildly editorial but still conveys why refusals occur.

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 10-parameter, zero-required, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers mode selection, gating, paging approach, and failure behavior. A brief note on the shape of the paged response (e.g. whether replies are nested) would close the remaining gap.

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 90%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning on top: it clarifies that filter covers 'unread/flagged', that search/account/platform/since-until are list-mode-only, and that comment_id inverts the call into a single-record-plus-replies lookup where only workspace_id is honored. That interaction between parameters is not expressible in 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('list comments') along with the exact platform scope (Instagram, Facebook Pages, Threads, LinkedIn Pages) and splits behavior into two clearly labeled modes keyed on comment_id. An agent knows precisely what this returns versus what it refuses.

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 states the two calling modes ('Without comment_id: list comments filtered by...' / 'With comment_id: one comment and its replies') and the constraint that only workspace_id may be combined with comment_id, which is real when-to-use guidance. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g. manage_comment for writes), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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