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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: ordering (oldest first), nested reply structure, the unanswered_only filter effect, and the Cotlet API key auth requirement.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and return shape, followed by parameter guidance and the auth note. Every sentence carries information, with only minor overlap against the schema on unanswered_only.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value burden, and it does name the returned fields and reply nesting. For a two-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete; pagination/limits are the only unaddressed detail.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates unanswered_only's meaning and explains where comment_id comes from (list_posts -> items -> reply_to_comment), which is helpful but mostly overlaps the schema.

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 (list) and resource (comments) scoped to one post, and enumerates the returned fields (author, text, replied status). It clearly routes the write-side sibling (reply_to_comment) so an agent can distinguish read from reply.

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?

Explains the unanswered_only condition and points to reply_to_comment for follow-up actions, giving clear usage context. It does not name competing read tools (e.g. get_post) or state when NOT to use this, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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