Get comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the description's real contribution is the cost model: 1 credit per call, failures free, and cached repeats free with max_age_days. That is genuinely useful operational context an agent cannot get from the annotations, though nothing is said about pagination termination or rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: the action and scope first, then platform coverage, then cost and escape hatch. Every sentence earns its place, which is notable given how much information is packed in.

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 no output schema, the description correctly frames the result as a page and the params object points the agent to describe for underlying endpoint options, which covers the nested-object complexity. The one loose end is the mention of max_age_days, a caching parameter that appears nowhere in the input schema and is left undocumented.

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 id, url, limit, cursor, params and the platform enum are all documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the platform list, which duplicates the enum, so it adds no meaning beyond structured data — the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get a page of comments on a post or video') and immediately names the supported platforms, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns and where it applies. It also routes out-of-scope needs to the platform-specific sibling tools, making it distinguishable from get_post and the per-platform 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?

It establishes the use case (paging comments for a post or video on the seven listed platforms) and points to an alternative ('use the platform's own tool') when the task exceeds this scope. The boundary phrase 'anything beyond this' is somewhat loose and no explicit when-not condition is spelled out, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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