Read comments on a post

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe read-only nature, and the description does not contradict it. It adds limited context by specifying that post can be a URL or activity/share URN, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, response shape, or rate limits.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence about 'post' is redundant with the schema but not verbose; overall there is no wasted text.

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the 'post' input format. However, it omits any statement about the return value, default/optional behavior of 'limit', or relationship to sibling tools, so it is only minimally 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?

The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema: the only parameter guidance it gives ('post is a post URL or an activity/share URN') exactly duplicates the schema description. The 'limit' parameter is entirely undocumented in both the description and schema, leaving its semantics to inference from the name and bounds.

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 the action ('Read') and the resource ('comments on a post'), making the purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like reply_to_comment (writing) and read_feed (reading feed) by specifying comments on a post.

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 when comments on a post are needed, but it provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives. For example, it does not mention that reply_to_comment should be used for writing comments or that read_feed covers feed-level reads.

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