Get a comment

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the data returned (full text, author, moderation status) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, required permissions, or rate limits. The annotation coverage makes this acceptable, though the description adds little beyond it.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that leads with the primary action and immediately specifies the returned fields. There is zero redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and what it returns. The annotations cover the read-only and non-destructive behavior. The only omission is error behavior when the ID does not exist, but this is a minor gap for a get-by-id operation.

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% for both id and site_id, with the site_id parameter already having a detailed explanation of its optionality and default behavior. The description only says 'by ID', which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 ('Fetch'), a resource ('one comment by ID'), and enumerates the returned fields (full text, author details, moderation status). This clearly distinguishes it from comment mutation tools like create_comment or update_comment, and from other entity getters like get_term or get_user.

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 the tool is for fetching a single comment by ID, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as list_comments for enumeration or moderate_comments for moderation workflows. No when/ when-not conditions or exclusions are provided, leaving the selection logic implicit.

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