Get comments on a forum thread

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description correctly does not restate read-only safety. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: replies are nested under parent's childComments rather than appearing as separate entries. This is a non-obvious trait that helps the agent understand the result shape.

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 filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds an essential detail about nesting. Every word 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?

With a full input schema, output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the key operational nuance (nesting behavior). It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional information.

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%: each parameter (page, perPage, threadId) already has a detailed description in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('top-level comments on an AniList forum thread'), scoped by thread ID. It also clarifies the nesting behavior of replies, clearly distinguishing it from thread tools like get_thread or search_thread.

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 when to use the tool (to retrieve top-level comments for a known thread ID) and adds a key caveat about replies being nested. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the threadId schema description references search_thread as a lookup method.

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