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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, closed-world, so the description's job is to add the rest — and it does, disclosing sort order ('Newest first') and that answers are included with each question. It stops short of describing pagination or what the default result set size is.

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?

A single tightly packed sentence that front-loads the resource, then scope, then ordering. Nothing redundant and nothing padded.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient — but the undefined 'limit' behavior (default count, max) remains an open question an agent would need answered before calling it reliably.

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 50%: 'link' is documented (optional, omit for all links) and the description reinforces that with '(or all links).' The 'limit' parameter carries no description in the schema and no explanation in the description — no default, no maximum — so the coverage gap is only half compensated.

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 concrete resource ('questions readers asked a link') and what comes with it ('the answers they got'), plus the ordering. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never names why it differs from close siblings like list_comments or reader_activity, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'a link (or all links)' hints at the via-link context, and the schema note says 'Leave out for all links.' There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no pointer to list_comments or reader_activity as alternatives for adjacent data.

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