Spotlight Comments by Link

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully explains the apparent read/write tension: it is a 'read-like POST' that does not publish, while flagging credit consumption and the required confirm=true. This adds real context beyond the structured hints, though it does not cover rate limits or failure behavior.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by return shape, pagination usage, and the credit/confirm caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden well, listing snap id, comments, cursor, and hasMore. Combined with the credit/confirm disclosure and pagination loop, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the cursor round-trip ('Pass the returned cursor back as the cursor param to load more comments'), which documents the pagination workflow that the schema field alone does not convey. The account and confirm params are only lightly supported.

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 ('Fetches') and resource ('public comments from Snapchat's Spotlight comments API by URL'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling snapchat_spotlight_by_link that fetches the snap itself. 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 clear pagination usage ('Pass the returned cursor back ... to load more comments') and a prerequisite (confirm=true), but does not explicitly frame when to choose this tool over related siblings such as snapchat_spotlight_by_link or the various *_comments tools. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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