Read a post's comments

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

The description reveals a significant behavioral trait beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations: the tool attempts to reorder comments into 'All comments' and reports whether the switch succeeded. This gives the agent important context about response interpretation, which the annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, the behavioral nuance is explained in one clause, and the read-only safety note reinforces the annotation without being redundant. Every sentence 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?

For a read-only tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the key outcome (comments and the success flag for ordering switch). It could mention the structure of the returned comments, but the openWorldHint and the simplicity of the operation make this a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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?

All five parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage), providing the baseline of 3. The description adds semantic depth to the 'sort_all' parameter by explaining why the ordering switch matters (knowing whether the thread is filtered) and that the result indicates success. The other parameters are self-explanatory from schema descriptions.

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 clear verb+resource pair: 'Read the comment thread on a post.' It also distinguishes from sibling tools like read_post by focusing specifically on comments and mentions the unique behavior of switching to 'All comments' ordering.

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 usage context is implied ('if you need comments, use this'), but the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It does provide useful situational context about the 'Most relevant' vs 'All comments' ordering, but stops short of saying 'use this instead of X'.

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