Get User Comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the 'Read-only' claim is redundant, but 'anonymous' adds genuine context about authentication needs. More importantly, the description discloses the return envelope and pagination contract ({"data": [...], "after": cursor|null}), which no annotation or output schema provides.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the safety and return-shape facts. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 usefully compensates by describing the response envelope and cursor pagination. The only gap is that it never contrasts itself with the close siblings get_post_comments or get_user_posts, which an agent selecting among 11 tools would benefit from.

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 sort, after, limit, username and time_filter are already fully documented in the schema, including enum meanings and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('comments written by a user') and adds the scoping detail that each comment carries its post title, which is enough to separate it from get_post_comments. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrasing 'written by a user', which tells the agent this is a user-scoped listing rather than a post-scoped or search-based one. However, no alternative tool is named and no condition (e.g., when to prefer get_post_comments or get_user_posts) is given.

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