comment_on_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that comments are public ('real human bidders read these') and describes the auto-phrase feature. Does not cover potential destructive actions (editing/deleting) or permission requirements, but provides sufficient behavioral context for typical use.

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?

Concise and well-structured: first paragraph covers purpose and usage guidelines, second explains the content parameter. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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 two parameters, no annotations, and presence of an output schema (not described), the description adequately covers the tool's primary function and usage. Omits return value details but that is partially covered by the output schema. Missing some edge case handling (e.g., error states) but complete enough for typical agent interaction.

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 description must compensate. It explains the 'content' parameter's default behavior and empty-string usage for auto-phrasing, adding significant value. Does not detail 'post_id' format or source, but overall enhances understanding beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Comment on an opportunity.' It explicitly mentions the destination (matchawards.com) and differentiates from siblings like 'reply_to_comment' and 'get_comments' through unique context.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on appropriate comment content (substance only, specific types) and warns against generic enthusiasm. Mentions the auto-phrase generator for empty content. However, lacks explicit comparison with alternatives like when to use 'reply_to_comment' vs 'comment_on_post'.

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