reddit_comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses the underlying data source (RSS vs anonymous HTML), availability of metrics (net score, award count), limitations (large thread subset, no per-comment ratios), and precise HTTP status codes for empty, missing, and blocked scenarios.

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 succinct yet information-dense, starting with a clear purpose and then systematically covering modes, limitations, and error codes. No redundant sentences or filler; each sentence contributes unique operational knowledge.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description describes both the standard return (post with comments) and the metrics-mode return (server-rendered comments with net score/award count plus engagement metrics), along with edge-case responses. Minor gap: no guidance on retrieving additional comments when large threads are truncated, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the behavioral impact of include_metrics (switching source, credit cost, return fields) and the consequence of large threads on limit/depth. This goes beyond the schema definitions, justifying a 4.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('Reddit post comments'), and clarifies the return as a Reddit post with its public comments. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like reddit_post, reddit_user_comments, and reddit_subreddit_comments, which target different Reddit data.

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 provides explicit guidance on the two operation modes (default RSS 1-credit vs include_metrics=true 3-credit HTML), including the trade-offs (credit cost, subset exposure). It also gives error handling instructions (503 retryable vs 404). However, it does not directly state when to prefer this tool over sibling Reddit comment tools, so it leans on the tool name for that context.

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