Get gallery comments

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond those cues by warning that comments are untrusted plain text and disclosing that scores, vote summaries, and possibly below-threshold comments are included. There is no contradiction with 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?

A single sentence front-loads the core action and resource, then packs the important caveats (untrusted text, scores/vote summaries, hidden threshold) with no wasted words. Every clause adds relevant information.

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?

With a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needs to convey purpose, data trust, and the optional hidden-comments behavior, which it does clearly. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the structured schema already fully documents site, gallery, galleryUrl, and includeHidden along with constraints and defaults. The description adds only slight reinforcement of the includeHidden option, which meets the baseline but does not substantially extend the schema.

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 action ('Read') and a distinct resource ('uploader and user comments'), then adds what is included (scores, vote summaries) and a key option (below-threshold comments). This clearly separates it from sibling gallery metadata, search, and page-fetching tools.

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 makes the tool's context explicit: it is the tool for reading gallery comments, and there is no comment-specific alternative among the siblings. It doesn't list exclusions, but none are essential given that the resource is unique; the optional hidden-comments behavior also signals when includeHidden should be used.

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