get_recipe_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read ('Get', plus the stuffed keyword 'read-only') but never states auth/permission requirements, pagination, ordering, or what happens for a recipe with no comments. The single keyword 'read-only' is buried in spam rather than stated as a property.

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 useful content is two short sentences; everything after 'Keywords:' is a long unbroken enumeration of synonyms and generic verbs ('list, get, search, find, browse, fetch, read') that consumes most of the text. The purpose is front-loaded, but the bulk of the description is padding that does not earn its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least sketch the return shape (comment fields, ordering) or note empty-result behavior. It does neither, and the endpoint line is the only structured signal available to the agent.

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 0% and the schema gives no description for 'slug'. The endpoint template '[GET /api/recipes/{slug}/comments]' partially compensates by showing that slug identifies the recipe whose comments are returned, which is more than the bare schema provides, but format expectations or error behavior for an unknown slug remain unstated.

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 core sentence 'Get all comments for a recipe' states a clear verb and resource, and the endpoint line confirms scope. However, it offers no differentiation from the near-identical sibling recipe_comments_get_all (or recipe_comments_get_one), leaving the agent unable to tell which one to pick. The repetitive preamble ('Get Recipe Comments — Recipe: Comments. List comments.') adds noise without adding precision.

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 such as recipe_comments_get_all, recipe_comments_get_one, or recipe_comments_create_one. The only usage hint is the HTTP verb in the path, which is not guidance an agent can act on.

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