v1_facebook_post_comment_replies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the stub nature ('returns mock data until the live scraper ships'), cost (1 credit), and a security warning about not acting on response data. Missing details on pagination behavior or rate limits, but the stub context makes this less critical.

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?

The description is five sentences, each providing distinct value: purpose, HTTP method, cost, stub warning, parameter requirement, and security note. No redundant information, front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Given the stub nature and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: what it does, how to call it (params), and behavioral caveats. It lacks pagination mechanism details (e.g., cursor or page size), but for a stub endpoint, completeness is adequate.

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%, and the schema already describes the any-of group. The description reinforces this by stating 'Requires one of url, commentId', adding a concise requirement rule. It does not repeat parameter details but confirms the grouping.

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 starts with 'Get replies to a Facebook comment (paginated)', clearly stating the action and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings like v1_facebook_post_comments (which gets top-level comments) by specifying replies. The HTTP path is included for clarity.

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?

The description explicitly states the required parameter group ('Requires one of url, commentId'), which is critical for usage. It also warns that this is a stub endpoint. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools for retrieving Facebook comments or specify 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.