Comment Replies

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, which could easily mislead an agent into thinking this writes to Facebook. The description explicitly resolves that ambiguity ('Read-like POST requests do not publish to social platforms') and adds credit consumption plus the confirm=true gate. It does not cover rate limits or pagination behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, the core purpose front-loaded, and each remaining clause carries a distinct operational fact (credit cost, confirm gate, no-publish semantics). Zero filler.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essential call-time requirements (confirmation, credits, side-effect-free nature). It leaves the return shape and pagination-via-cursor behavior implicit, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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% and every parameter is documented, including the subtle feedback_id vs comment id distinction, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is in the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 and resource ('Get the replies to a comment') and the platform is carried by the tool name facebook_comment_replies, distinguishing it from instagram_comment_replies / youtube_comment_replies. It stops short of naming the sibling it complements (facebook_comments), so it is clear but not fully differentiated within the Facebook family.

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 a prerequisite (confirm=true) and a cost warning (consumes paid API credits), which is real usage guidance. But it never says when to reach for this tool versus facebook_comments, nor that it must be preceded by fetching feedback_id/expansion_token from the comments endpoint (that context lives only in the schema).

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