Get Post Comments

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint by disclosing that 'more' stubs cannot be expanded (Reddit returns HTTP 403 for anonymous tokens), that no follow-up call will recover them, and that access is read-only/anonymous. This is exactly the kind of operational caveat annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the return shape, then the critical 403 limitation, then the recovery action. The embedded return-shape snippet is dense but earns its place given there is no output schema. Minor density cost from the JSON-ish notation.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates fully by describing the response envelope (post/data/more/after), the meaning of 'more' and 'more_replies', the auth model, and the 403 dead end. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it ties limit/depth/sort to observable outcomes ('Deeper replies become more stubs', 'larger limit/depth or a different sort' to see more of a thread). That causal link between parameters and result shape is not in the 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?

Opens with a precise resource statement, 'The comment tree of a post,' which is unmistakably distinct from siblings like get_reddit_post (the post itself) and get_user_comments (a user's comment history). An agent can select this tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent what to do when it wants deeper coverage: 'call get_post_comments again with a larger limit/depth or a different sort.' It lacks when-not-to-use guidance or direct naming of competing siblings, but the re-invocation rule is clear and actionable.

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