get_comments_by_submission

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

Without annotations, the description bears full burden. It correctly suggests a read-only operation ('Retrieve comments') and indicates the return type ('list of comments with their replies'). However, it does not disclose specific behaviors such as how depth of replies is handled, whether there are rate limits, or the effect of replace_more beyond a brief sentence.

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?

The description is concise with separate Args and Returns sections, making it easy to scan. The first sentence immediately conveys the tool's core function. However, it could be more front-loaded by placing the core purpose before the argument list.

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 tool with 2 parameters and a simple read operation, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, parameter meanings, and return type. It lacks details on pagination, ordering, or limitations of the comment list, but the moderate complexity justifies a score of 4 rather than 5.

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 must compensate. It clearly explains each parameter: submission_id as 'ID of the submission' and replace_more as 'Whether to replace MoreComments objects with actual comments'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, which only provides type and default.

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 explicitly states 'Retrieve comments from a specific submission', clearly identifying the verb (retrieve) and resource (comments from a submission). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_comment_by_id (single comment) and get_submission (submission details).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., get_comment_by_id for a single comment, search_posts for broader search). The description also lacks advice on when to set replace_more to true vs false, leaving the agent to infer usage from the parameter name alone.

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