get_number_of_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns an 'integer count of comments', which is helpful, but doesn't cover other important aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or if it counts all comments or only visible ones. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: three short sentences that directly state the purpose, input, and output without any fluff. Each sentence earns its place by providing critical information, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. For a simple read operation, this might be sufficient, but the absence of annotations means more context would be beneficial for reliable agent use.

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 meaningful context beyond the input schema. The schema only shows 'post_id' as a required string parameter with 0% description coverage. The description clarifies that 'post_id' refers to 'a given post' and that the tool counts comments on that post, providing essential semantic understanding that the schema lacks. Since there's only one parameter, this compensation is effective.

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 tool's purpose: 'Count the number of comments on a given post.' It specifies the verb ('Count') and resource ('comments on a given post'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_post_comments' or 'get_post_top_commenters', which might retrieve comment data differently.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_post_comments' (which might return full comment objects) or 'filter_negative_comments' (which might filter comments), leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone. No explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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