get_profiles_comments

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

The description discloses that the tool returns the last 50 comments and costs 1 credit. It does not state whether it is read-only (likely but not explicit), or address rate limits or pagination. With no annotations, the description provides moderate transparency but could be more thorough.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and cost. Every word is necessary, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information (what it does, count, cost). However, the ambiguity of 'comments of a profile' slightly detracts from completeness.

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 a description for 'username' that provides an example value. The tool description does not add further semantics about the purpose or format of the parameter, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'last 50 comments of a profile'. It includes the cost per call. However, it is ambiguous whether these are comments made by the profile or on the profile's content, and it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_profile_post_comment or get_article_comments.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, there are many comment-related tools, but the description gives no context for selection.

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