metaculus_comments_feed

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is credential-free (public), returns normalized rows with comment counts, and explicitly notes that upstream comment bodies are not exposed. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. First sentence states purpose, second adds key details about data shape and limitation. Every sentence earns 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 feed tool without output schema, the description covers the essential: source (public comments feed), data shape (normalized question rows with comment counts), and limitation (no comment bodies). It lacks specifics on field names but is sufficient for an agent to understand what it returns.

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% for both parameters (limit and topic). The description does not add any information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool returns normalized Metaculus question rows from the public comments feed, with comment-related counts. The verb 'returns' and specific resource 'question rows from the comments feed' make the purpose distinct. The title is null but the description compensates.

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 mentions 'credential-free public comments feed' implying no auth needed, but does not specify when to use this tool versus sibling tools like metaculus_questions, metaculus_question, or metaculus_top_comments. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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