Analyze Comments

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not burdened with the safety profile. It adds meaningful context beyond the annotations by disclosing the cost ('Consumes 6 orchyn credits') and by detailing what the returned analysis contains. Nothing in the description contradicts the annotations.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and dense with useful detail, and the credit-cost note earns its place. But the final sentence ('Use when the goal is what to make next rather than what people wrote.') is a near-duplicate of the second sentence — clear redundancy that should have been edited out, dropping this from a 4 to a 3.

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 two well-documented parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the essentials: what it does, what it returns, when to use it, and the cost. The only meaningful gap is that it doesn't name the alternative tool (get_post_comments) explicitly, and the duplicated usage line is space that could have been used for that.

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%: url is documented as 'Full public post URL' and limit as 'Comments to read (default 50, max 100)'. The description adds only marginal parameter-level meaning by implying the url must point to a post ('Read a post's comment section'), so the baseline of 3 for fully-covered schemas is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource ('Read a post's comment section') and enumerates the concrete outputs: sentiment, recurring themes, questions, objections, content requests, language, and follow-up video ideas. It explicitly contrasts itself with getting raw comments ('what should I make next' rather than 'what did people write'), which distinguishes it from the sibling get_post_comments without needing to open either schema.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use signal: 'Use when the goal is what should I make next rather than what did people write.' This clearly frames the decision context and implies the alternative (raw comment retrieval). However, it does not name the sibling tool explicitly nor state a when-not-to-use condition, and the guidance is stated twice, which slightly dilutes its precision.

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