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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses output shaping (nested replies preserved, false flags and empty replies omitted), the more_id/comment_id expansion loop, and an untrusted-content/prompt-injection warning. It omits read-only status, rate limits, and failure behavior (e.g., nonexistent post).

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 core action, then parameter routing, the expansion workflow, and the safety note. Dense but every clause carries information; the boolean-flag parenthetical is the only mildly incidental detail.

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 six params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers enough: what is returned, how comments nest, how to expand collapsed subtrees, and how to address the post. Return-value details beyond shape (pagination, limits) remain unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by framing url versus subreddit+postId as mutually exclusive alternatives and by connecting comment_id to the more_id value surfaced in output, a link the schema alone does not make.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: fetching a single Reddit post plus its threaded comments. The scope (one post + comment tree) implicitly separates it from get_subreddit_posts and search_reddit, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear invocation context: 'Pass subreddit+postId, OR a full reddit url', and explains the follow-up pattern for collapsed subtrees. It does not say when to prefer this over search_reddit or get_subreddit_posts, so there are no exclusions or alternative routing.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it names the return fields (id, subreddit, next_after) and adds a genuine safety trait — that returned titles/bodies/comments are untrusted user content to be treated as data. Missing only auth/rate-limit context.

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 dense sentences with no filler; return shape and pagination come before the safety note, and every clause 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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly fills that gap by describing the returned fields and the pagination cursor, and it flags the untrusted-content risk. Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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, time, after, limit, and subreddit are already documented. The description restates the sort enum and reinforces the pagination cursor flow but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (posts from a subreddit), enumerates the sort modes, and distinguishes itself from get_post by naming it as the follow-up tool. An agent can tell it apart from siblings like search_reddit without opening any 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?

Gives clear context: browse a subreddit's listing, then follow up with get_post using returned id+subreddit, and paginate with next_after. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a direct contrast with search_reddit, which is the closest alternative.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the pagination mechanism (submissions plus next_after) and, importantly, warns that returned titles/bodies/comments are untrusted user-generated text to be treated as data, not instructions. It omits auth requirements and rate-limit behavior, so it isn't exhaustive.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return/pagination shape, then the safety caveat. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover behavior; it does cover return shape, pagination, and the untrusted-content caveat. It stops short of describing rate limits or auth, but for a read-only fetch tool the essentials are present.

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 username, sort, and after are already documented, including the cursor semantics. The description's mention of next_after largely restates the schema's 'after' description rather than adding new syntax or constraints. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a Reddit user's recent posts') and immediately scopes it ('for source-vetting'), which cleanly separates it from get_subreddit_posts, search_reddit, and get_post by resource. An agent can pick 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?

Gives an explicit use case ('is this poster a bot/spammer'), which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. It doesn't name the sibling alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses search-matching behavior, describes the return shape (posts with id + subreddit), and adds an important prompt-injection warning that returned titles/bodies/comments are UNTRUSTED user text. It stops short of noting rate limits, auth requirements, or pagination behavior for the private instance.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the highest-risk guidance (query shape) before the alternative-tool routing and the untrusted-content warning. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 5-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, how to phrase queries, when to use a sibling instead, and the trust level of returned content. Minor gaps remain around result volume/pagination and any access constraints on the private instance.

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, time, limit, query, and subreddit are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the query semantics with a rationale (exact-ish term matching) but adds no syntax or format detail for the other four parameters, 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Reddit posts) with the mechanism (private Redlib instance). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings, naming get_subreddit_posts as the alternative for 'best/recent posts about X' and get_post as the follow-up tool.

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?

Gives explicit query-construction guidance ('use SHORT keyword queries (2-5 words)', search is 'exact-ish term matching, NOT natural language') and an explicit routing rule to a named alternative for a specific intent. Nothing is left to inference.

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