nexus_search_comments

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses that the v2 API does not consume v1 REST rate-limit quota, surfaces a known server-side HTTP 500 issue, and notes possible extra permissions for some threads. These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs to interpret errors and decide whether to proceed.

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 description is longer than minimal, but every block carries non-redundant information: purpose, API/rate-limit context, invocation constraint, known issue, permission caveat, and return shape. The structure front-loads the purpose and separates the return format clearly.

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 search tool with an output schema, the description covers the only decision point (term vs thread_id), error behavior, rate-limit implications, and the response structure. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret the result without opening the schema.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a meaningful description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the critical mutual-exclusion rule between term and thread_id, which the schema cannot express, and maps each operating mode to its corresponding 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search Nexus Mods comments by text or list a thread's comments.' It clearly distinguishes the two operating modes and differentiates the tool from sibling comment tools like nexus_get_comment, nexus_create_comment, and nexus_get_comment_thread, which cover different actions.

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 states the critical invocation constraint: 'Provide exactly one of term or thread_id.' It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or say when not to use this tool, but the two-mode framing and parameter guidance give enough context for correct selection.

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