Social Get Comment Replies

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the non-obvious performance behavior (scratchattach pages through the profile) and the underlying implementation reason (no single-profile-comment endpoint). This is valuable beyond just saying 'fetch.' It doesn't mention error cases or rate limits, but the output schema covers return structure and this is a read-only operation.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler. The first states the core purpose, the second delivers the caveat and redirects to the preferred alternative. Every sentence earns its place and the most important guidance is front-loaded.

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 fetch tool with an output schema, the description is dimensionally complete: purpose, the key performance caveat, and the alternative are all covered. It doesn't explicitly mention the need for an active social session, but the sibling tool names and schema context make that implicit. Minor gap, but overall well-rounded.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description's phrase 'one top-level comment' mirrors the schema's comment_id description ('Id of the top-level comment') and does not add new parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the replies to one top-level comment.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool social_get_comments by explicitly naming it as an alternative that returns profile replies inline, so an agent can differentiate them without opening schemas.

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 explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool: for source='profile' it is slow, and social_get_comments should be preferred. This directly addresses usage context and names the alternative, leaving no ambiguity about tool selection.

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