Get Post Comments

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds parameter-level details (e.g., post_id format, pagination via 'after'), but does not disclose additional behavioral constraints like rate limits or authentication requirements beyond annotations.

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 well-structured as a parameter list with inline comments. It is concise and focused, though slightly verbose with formatting (e.g., parentheses, default values). No unnecessary sentences.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, 2 required) and lack of output schema, the description covers all necessary parameter information, authentication prerequisites, and pagination. Minor gap: response_format is in schema but not described.

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 low (29%), but the description compensates by explaining all parameters: post_id format, page_id purpose, limit range, order and filter enumerations, and after pagination. It adds significant value 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?

The description clearly states 'Gets comments on a Facebook Page post,' specifying the verb and resource. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like meta_get_post_reactions or meta_get_instagram_comments.

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 provides useful guidance, such as calling meta_list_pages first to get page_id, and explains parameter defaults and formats. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools for Instagram comments or other comment-related endpoints.

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