read_discussion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns all posts and orders them oldest first. However, it does not describe pagination, response size limits, or other runtime behaviors. This is comparable to the get_calls calibration where the description adds scoping but not rich behavioral detail.

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 two sentences: the first states the core behavior, the second documents the parameter source. Every sentence earns its place, and the purpose is front-loaded. No redundant filler.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and an output schema present, the description covers what an agent needs: what the tool does, the ordering behavior, and where to obtain the discussion_id. No critical calling information 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains that discussion_id comes from open_item on a forum or from announcements, which is meaningful context beyond the bare integer schema. It does not fully specify the id format, but the sourcing guidance is sufficient for a single 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: 'Read a whole forum thread (all posts, oldest first).' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like open_item, which likely opens a single item, by emphasizing the full thread scope and ordering.

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 implies when to use the tool—when the whole thread is needed—but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It does provide useful sourcing guidance for the discussion_id, referencing open_item and announcements, which helps an agent locate the parameter value.

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