metaculus_top_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the feed is credential-free and public, and that comment bodies are not exposed. However, it does not mention rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond limit parameter), or the meaning of 'normalized'. Some additional behavioral context would be helpful.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the tool's purpose directly, and the second adds critical details about the output and limitations. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return structure. It vaguely mentions 'rows represent question cards with comment-related counts' but does not specify fields, data types, or example output. Given the number of siblings and the lack of output schema, this is incomplete for an agent to reliably use the tool.

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 clear descriptions for 'limit' and 'topic'. The tool description adds no further parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage. No additional parameter context is provided.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns normalized Metaculus question rows from the top comments feed, specifying the source and what the rows contain. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'metaculus_comments_feed', leaving some ambiguity about when to use this tool over that one.

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 implies usage for getting top comments (credential-free, public weekly top comments) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like metaculus_comments_feed or other feed tools. No exclusions or when-not-to-use context is given.

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