read_topic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by stating the response contains trimmed HTML bodies and that the operation is anonymous. This goes beyond the tool name, although it does not cover error behavior or edge cases.

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 entire description is one short sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and includes only necessary additional details. No redundant phrases or filler.

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 low complexity, full parameter schema coverage, and the fact that the description states the response contains the topic and its posts (with trimmed HTML bodies), the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. There is no output schema, but the description covers the relevant return content.

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 schema already documents topic_id as an integer with the description 'Topic id', and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description confirms that the topic is being read but does not add extra meaning beyond the schema for the single parameter.

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 specifies a clear verb (read), resource (topic), and output scope (topic with posts, trimmed HTML bodies). This distinguishes it from the list-oriented sibling tools (list_latest_topics, list_top_topics) because it targets a single topic by id.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need one topic and its posts. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as list_latest_topics for browsing multiple topics or list_category_topics for category-scoped listing. The usage context is clear but implicit.

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