get_v2_media_comment_offensive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions 'GET' in brackets and a vague 'Whether to receive an offensive comment.' It does not clarify if this is a read-only operation, what side effects exist, or what the response looks like. Critical gaps in transparency.

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 extremely short but at the expense of clarity. The bracketed HTTP method and path are redundant given the tool name. The actual prose is ambiguous and does not earn its place. A single coherent sentence would be better.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should provide comprehensive context. It fails to explain return values, error handling, or how the offensive check works. The tool is essentially undocumented for practical use.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the two parameters (media_id and comment). It does not explain what media_id or comment refers to, what format is expected, or how they relate to the check. The description fails completely to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Media Check Offensive Comment' and 'Whether to receive an offensive comment' is vague and uses passive language. It does not clearly state what the tool does (e.g., returns a boolean, checks a comment). The purpose is ambiguous compared to sibling tools like get_v2_media_comments or get_v2_media_likers.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. Does not specify prerequisites, alternatives, or context. The description only hints at checking offensive comments but offers no decision-making support.

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