reddit_engagement_candidates

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses data sources (reddit_hits, reddit_classifications), ranking logic (bucket priority and recency), output split (posts vs comments), and listed fields. It lacks explicit mention of read-only behavior or rate limits, but the description adequately conveys non-destructive intent.

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 well-structured with purpose, details, usage guidelines, and parameter definitions. It is front-loaded with the key purpose. Though slightly long, every sentence adds value, and the structure aids readability.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (context signal) and no annotations, the description is thorough: it explains data sources, ranking, output fields, and intended workflow. All parameters are described, and the usage guidance is complete for a candidate retrieval 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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description includes a detailed 'Args' section explaining each parameter (lookback_hours, include_posts, include_comments, limit, exclude_engaged) with defaults and semantics. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema.

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 it returns 'recent, classified, non-noise Reddit candidates to comment on.' It specifies reading from pipeline tables (no live fetch) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reddit_mark_engaged by outlining the intended workflow.

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 'Intended use' paragraph explicitly tells when to use the tool (draft comments) and what to do next (call reddit_mark_engaged after posting). It also advises to open permalink first to avoid repeating replies, providing clear context on alternatives and proper usage.

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