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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only flag write/open-world/non-destructive). It discloses audience visibility ('visible to everyone who can read the post'), the downstream notification to the author, the default confirm-each-call behavior with an opt-out, the requirement to confirm with the user because it reaches other people, and the Cotlet API key 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 core action, then adds behavioral constraints in ordered, information-dense sentences. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary (confirmation guidance is repeated), but every element carries real decision value.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what is created, who sees it, who gets notified, the confirmation gate, and the auth prerequisite. Nothing material is missing.

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%, with both 'body' and 'comment_id' documented in the schema (including the pointer to list_comments). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('under a comment on your post'), with the scope that it's posted under your name and the author is notified. It is distinct from reading tools like list_comments or get_post, but it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to redirect against, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

The description conveys when the reply reaches others and that confirmation is required before each call, which implies the appropriate context of use. However, it never names an alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so usage guidance remains implied rather than stated.

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