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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description needed to add operational context. It adds none: no ordering, pagination, result cap, or whether replies/nested comments are included — all of which matter for a comments endpoint.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but that brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from efficient editing. There is no front-loaded statement of what is actually returned.

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?

A read tool with one undocumented parameter, no output schema, and no annotation beyond readOnlyHint needs more than a five-word fragment. Return shape, ordering, and pagination behavior are all left unstated, so an agent cannot confidently predict the result.

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?

There is a single required parameter, postId, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase "on a community post" only loosely implies the identifier; it does not state the expected ID format, source, or validity constraints beyond the schema's minLength.

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?

"Comments on a community post" names the resource but the verb is ambiguous — it reads as either retrieving comments or the act of commenting, and the name get_community_comments has to disambiguate it. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like add_community_comment, get_community_feed, or delete_community_comment.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling set contains add_community_comment and get_community_feed, both of which an agent could plausibly confuse with this one, and the description offers no routing guidance.

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