List article comments

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

Despite annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds significant value: API key requirement, quota consumption, pagination behavior, response shape, and the useful disambiguation that an empty list is not an error. These behavioral details go well beyond what the annotations communicate.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, use case, and error semantics. Front-loaded with the most important information first. No fluff or redundancy.

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 3 params and no output schema, the description is thorough: it covers ordering, pagination, auth, quota, response contents, and error handling. The context is fully provided within the description and annotations.

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% so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by framing limit/offset as a pagination workflow ('Page through with limit and offset') and reiterating the default of 20, which reinforces the conceptual model even though the schema documents the parameters thoroughly.

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 opening sentence 'Read the comment thread on one article, oldest first, paginated' uses a specific verb (read), specific resource (comment thread on one article), and adds scope (one article) plus ordering (oldest first). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_reactions or get_article, and the explicit 'It reads comments only; there is no tool here for posting or moderating' further differentiates it.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('Use it to review reader feedback or summarise a discussion') and when not to ('reads comments only; there is no tool here for posting or moderating a reply'). This gives clear when/when-not guidance without ambiguity.

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