Read a topic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the accepted-answer and triage-board fields are conditional on installed plugins, so the agent knows the response shape can vary. It does not mention pagination behavior, which the schema partly hints at.

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, zero filler, and the payload enumeration is front-loaded before the soft usage note. Every clause 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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return contents, and it does so well (post, replies, accepted answer, triage position). Minor gaps: pagination interaction with page/max_posts and behavior on invalid tid are left unstated.

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 100% and each of the three parameters (tid, page, max_posts) is documented with format/default context in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (topic) and enumerates what 'in full' means: original post, replies in order, accepted answer, triage position. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_post (single post) and get_topic_answer (just the answer) by promising the whole thread, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 closing sentence gives a use case ('understanding a reported issue in the reporter's own words'), which implies when to reach for it. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to the obvious alternatives (get_post, get_topic_answer, investigate_issue), so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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