rednote_get_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: 'Read only' declares the safety profile, 'first page' discloses a pagination/scope limit, and the field list (id, author, text) previews the return shape in the absence of an output schema. It omits auth requirements and whether deeper pages are reachable at all, so it is not complete.

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 tight clauses with the primary action front-loaded and the follow-on tool hint last. No filler, though it is clipped enough that the reader must infer some details.

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 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential minimum: what is read, the scope limit, and the returned fields. It leaves gaps around the limit parameter, authentication context (relevant given the rednote_login_status sibling), and whether more than one page is retrievable.

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%, so the description must compensate, yet it never mentions the 'limit' parameter (max 50) nor explains its default or whether it interacts with the 'first page' behavior. 'On a note' only loosely implies the required url parameter, leaving the second parameter entirely undocumented anywhere the agent can see.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the first page of comments on a note') plus the exact payload it returns (id, author, text). An agent can immediately distinguish this from rednote_get_note or rednote_reply_comment without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the downstream consumer: 'Use these values for rednote_reply_comment,' which gives a concrete reason to call it (harvest comment ids before replying). It does not state when NOT to use it or contrast it with sibling read tools like rednote_get_note, so it stops 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.