ig_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description only adds that replies are included, saying nothing about pagination, ordering, or how many comments come back (limit is silently defaulted to 100).

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?

A single short fragment with no filler, so nothing is wasted. But it is under-specified rather than concise – the terseness comes at the cost of routing and parameter information.

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 tool with a required id, an optional limit, and no output schema, the description omits pagination behavior, default result size, and any hint about the response shape. It is too thin to fully guide an agent calling it.

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 description coverage is only 33%: media_id (required) and limit are undocumented in the schema, and the description does not compensate. It implies media_id refers to the 'publicación' but never states the format or that limit controls the number of comments returned.

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 phrase names the resource (comments of a publication) and adds the scope 'con sus respuestas' (with their replies), which is more than a bare restatement of the name. However, it has no verb, and it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling ig_comments_unanswered, leaving the agent to guess which comment-listing tool to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. needing an account/media id first), and no mention of the sibling ig_comments_unanswered. Usage can only be inferred from the resource name.

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