read_discussion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves up to 25k comments, that it does not do keyword matching, and that it returns full thread context. It also warns that the alternative path is slow and throttled. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but the behavioral traits it does disclose are meaningful and go beyond a simple 'read' label.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides context, then a clear comparison, then parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place; it is long but information-dense and well organized.

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 tool's complexity (2 params, no enums, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the use case, the alternative, the scale limit, and the parameter semantics. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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. It explains post_url_or_id accepts either a full reddit URL or a bare id, and it explains limit as 'max comments to retrieve'. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema field names, though it could be slightly more explicit about the default behavior of limit.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('the FULL comment thread under one Reddit post'), and explicitly contrasts it with sibling tools. It distinguishes itself from search_community and include_comments, making it clear what this tool does and what it is not.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('natural follow-up to search_community', 'highest-signal call for complaint mining') and when not to ('Prefer this over include_comments: searching comment bodies is the slow throttled path'). It names alternatives and gives a clear decision rule.

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