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. It discloses that the return format is 'raw matchawards JSON (Mastodon-style),' not a simplified shape, and mentions a specific error code (409) if the user is not signed up. It could be more explicit about idempotency or side effects, but the provided details are helpful.

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 sentences with no extraneous content. The first sentence answers what the tool does, the second describes the return structure, and the third covers prerequisites. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 simple input (one required string) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown, the description outlines the return shape), the description is complete. It explains the error condition, the nature of the return data, and the purpose. No obvious gaps remain for this tool.

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?

The only parameter is 'post_id,' and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'comment thread on an opportunity,' implying post_id is the opportunity's post ID, but does not provide format, examples, or any additional context beyond the implicit connection. It adds minimal value over 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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the comment thread on an opportunity.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'comment_on_post' (writing) and 'reply_to_comment' (writing) by indicating a read-only operation.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: 'Requires a complete matchawards signup (returns 409 before then).' This tells the agent when not to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like comment_on_post or reply_to_comment, though the purpose implies read-only usage.

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