Get gallery comments

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context: comments are 'untrusted plain text' (security implication), and it discloses that scores and vote summaries are included. It does not contradict annotations and goes beyond them with this behavioral note.

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous words. The first sentence captures the core purpose and key details, the second adds an optional feature. Every sentence adds value. Excellent conciseness.

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 complexity (4 params, nested object, output schema exists), the description covers the main intent and one parameter's use. However, it does not explain how to provide the gallery (via ID/token or URL) or the role of the site parameter. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but parameter context is lacking. Minimum viable completeness.

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%. The description only implicitly addresses includeHidden ('optionally include comments below the normal viewing threshold'). It does not explain the site, gallery (nested object), or galleryUrl parameters, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names and types. This is insufficient for 4 parameters with no 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 clearly states the tool reads uploader and user comments, specifies they are untrusted plain text, and mentions inclusion of scores and vote summaries. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like eh_get_gallery_detail or eh_get_gallery_metadata, which focus on other aspects.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It hints at the includeHidden parameter but does not explain when comments should be fetched via this tool instead of, for example, eh_get_gallery_detail (which might also include comments). No exclusions or context are given.

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