Get Wiki comment thread from the server

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: the server's /thread endpoint returns no replies in any case, verified live on a specific date. That is high-value disclosure an agent cannot get from annotations or schema.

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 key outcome, then the corroborating evidence and the redirect. Three short sentences with almost no waste; the 'plain or inline' clause is slightly redundant but harmless.

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 still tells the agent what to expect back (an empty list) and where to go instead, which is everything needed to avoid a wasted call. Complete for this tool's purpose.

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 page_id, comment_id and limit are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. how limit interacts with the always-empty result), 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 states a specific verb and resource — fetching a comment's thread as the Wiki server returns it — and explicitly names the sibling it competes with (comments_thread_list). The one caveat is that the stated purpose is essentially negative ('an empty list for every real thread'), so an agent learns what the tool nominally does rather than a useful capability.

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?

It gives an explicit directive: 'Use comments_thread_list, which rebuilds the thread from the page's comment list.' It even names the alternative and explains why it is preferable, which is exactly the routing information an agent needs.

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