get_media_comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful response content — commenter details and like counts — which substitutes for the absent output schema, but says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, permission/auth requirements, or rate limits for a read endpoint.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and payload summary both earn their place.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient, covering what is fetched and what is returned. The only shortfall is silence on pagination/ordering behavior when pulling comments.

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 100%, including the limit default of 15 and the media_id definition, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional semantics about how limit interacts with paging or what media_id accepts beyond 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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (comments) scoped to Instagram posts or reels, and names what the payload contains (commenter details, like counts). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_instagram_media or get_conversation_messages, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., reply_to_comment for responding, get_instagram_media for listing posts). Usage is only inferable from the object being fetched.

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