get_v2_media_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that: 'about 15 per call' indicates return size, and 'Live request to Instagram, one billed request per page' discloses cost and network behavior. It does not cover rate limits or error handling, but the added billing and pagination context is substantial.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and pagination instructions, followed by alternative tool routing and billing context. Every sentence earns its place, and the GET endpoint note at the end is compact and useful.

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 read-only paginated endpoint with no output schema, the description covers purpose, pagination, alternatives, and cost. The only notable gap is the unexplained `can_support_threading` parameter, but the tool's core usage is fully 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 description coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate. It explains the two most important parameters (`id` and `page_id`) clearly, but `can_support_threading` is left completely undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description adds meaning for the key parameters but does not fully close 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get comments on an Instagram post') and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming `get_v2_media_comments_replies` and `get_v2_media_likers`. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use instructions: pass the media `id`, use `page_id` from the previous response for pagination, and use alternative tools for replies and likers. The conditions that select each alternative are clearly stated.

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