ig_comments_unanswered

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 adds the meaningful behavioral constraint that results are filtered to unanswered comments within recent posts, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or ordering.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the resource definition and appends the scope constraint. No wasted words, though the terse phrasing leaves little room for the missing context.

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 simple read-only tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the core concept but leaves return format, pagination, and the max_age_days behavior undefined. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% (just the account parameter). The phrase 'últimas N publicaciones' loosely maps to the posts parameter, but max_age_days (default 30) is never explained despite being a meaningful filter on comment age. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 a specific resource (unanswered comments from other people) and scopes it (last N posts), so an agent can distinguish it from the broader ig_comments. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it differs from, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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 filter definition (comments awaiting a reply) implies the use case of finding comments that need responding to, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no reference to ig_comments as the alternative for all comments.

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