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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false, which leaves the actual cost and side effects unexplained. The description fills that gap with concrete traits: one read credit consumed, comments saved to the user's Puley history, Reddit collection bounded to 10 comments and paid from balance, and a pending job returning job_id plus next_read.link for later collection.

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?

What the tool returns is front-loaded, and the credit/history and platform-limit notes follow in a useful order. The Reddit passage is compressed into a long clause chain (bounded collection, balance payment, pending job, sample ordering) that takes a second pass to parse.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source of return-value information, and it lists the fields and ordering behavior explicitly. It also covers the async case (Reddit job_id/next_read.link) so an agent knows a partial result may need a follow-up call.

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%, so the description has to carry all three parameters and it mostly does: limit is bounded (5 to 200, with the Instagram signed-out caveat around 15) and sort is described as "top or newest first." The link parameter is only implied through the platform list and never states accepted link formats, which is the remaining 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 names the exact resource and scope: public comments on TikTok videos, YouTube videos, and Instagram posts/reels, and enumerates what comes back (text, author, likes, replies, timing). That implicit verb-plus-resource framing plus the platform list is specific enough to separate it from adjacent siblings such as read_reviews or search_posts without opening a 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 gestures at intent ("Shows what people are saying, the audience's questions and the reaction to a post"), which implies when the tool is useful. But it never says when not to use it or routes the agent to an alternative sibling, and the platform caveats (Instagram ~15 comments, Reddit sampling) are stated as facts rather than as selection guidance.

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