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

Adds substantive behavioral context beyond annotations: SoundCloud may block commenting after many rapid messages, each call is confirmed by default with a switch-off option, and a Cotlet API key with app access is required. These are valuable operational details even though openWorldHint already signals external reach.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the description repeats the posting idea across two sentences and states the confirmation requirement twice. This redundancy makes it less efficient than it could be.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety confirmation, rate-limit risk, and authentication needs. Return values are not described, but annotations already carry the safety profile, so the remaining gap is minor.

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%, so the schema already documents both 'body' and 'comment_id' with useful descriptions. The tool description adds no syntax, format, or validation details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 'Reply' and resource 'comment on your track', and clarifies the reply appears under the user's name. It distinguishes the action from siblings like list_comments and delete_comment without needing their schemas.

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?

Gives a confirmation guideline ('confirm with the user before each call') and notes the default per-call confirmation, but does not name alternatives such as send_message or list_comments, nor when not to use this tool. Usage context is mostly implied by the tool name.

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