read_discussion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context at all: no pagination behavior, no error handling for an invalid or inaccessible discussion_id, no auth requirements, and no indication of how much content is returned.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the scope statement comes before the parenthetical hint about parameter sourcing. It is slightly under-specified rather than padded, so nothing wasted but little provided.

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?

The phrase 'every post' communicates that the full discussion is returned without filtering, which covers the return-shape question in the absence of an output schema, and annotations handle the safety profile. Auth/permission expectations are the only real gap for a tool this simple.

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 0% for the single parameter, yet the description supplies the one fact the schema omits: where discussion_id values originate (get_announcements). That provenance note is the key semantic need for this tool, though it doesn't clarify the expected id format.

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 names a specific resource and scope: all posts of a single forum discussion, which is distinct from sibling reads like read_file or get_course_outline. It lacks an explicit verb, reading as a fragment, but the resource and scope are unambiguous enough for an agent to select 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?

The parenthetical '(ids come from get_announcements)' tells the agent how to obtain the required parameter, which is real usage guidance, but it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as read_file or get_course_outline, nor any precondition beyond the id source.

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