comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a read-style list operation and notes the page and oldest_first options, which is useful. It does not cover response shape, pagination size, or any side effects, so it is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence packs the purpose and all parameter guidance with no filler. The required parameter is front-loaded before the optional ones.

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 list tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description gives the critical input requirements. It is missing return-value details and any pagination semantics, but the tool's low complexity makes the omission moderate rather than severe.

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 the description needed to explain the parameters, but it mostly restates the schema: post_id required, page optional, oldest_first default true. It adds no meaning about page indexing, page size, or what oldest_first ordering means beyond the parameter name.

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 a specific verb-resource pair: 'Comment list for a post.' It clearly identifies the operation and target resource. It does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like get_post_details or notes, so it misses the top score.

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 context is clear: this tool is for retrieving comments on a post, and the required post_id is explicitly stated. There are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned, but the intended use case is evident from the one-line context.

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