get_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the annotations: it does not explain pagination, ordering, rate limits, authentication needs, or what kind of comments are returned.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is arguably under-specified for a tool with four parameters and no schema descriptions. The concision is appropriate in form but leaves important gaps.

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 read-only, open-world tool with four parameters, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is too thin. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the description does not provide enough detail about required inputs, pagination, or returned data for an agent to call it confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate for four undocumented parameters. It only indirectly implies the tokenAddress parameter via 'for a token' and says nothing about the required chain, page, or limit parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get comments for a token.' It is clear enough to distinguish reading comments from the sibling write tool add_comment, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other comment- or sentiment-related siblings such as vote_sentiment.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as required chain selection or pagination. Usage is only implied by the tool name and one-line description.

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