get_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the comments are unverified by NARA and are researcher correspondence, so the agent knows to treat the output as low-authority and non-citable.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following lines add trust/quality context rather than padding. Slightly longer than needed, but every sentence carries a distinct caution about the data's reliability.

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 read-only, single-record tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the one thing the structured fields cannot: the epistemic status of the returned comments. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents all three parameters richly, including the refresh/cache semantics. The description adds nothing about naid, refresh, or max_chars, 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 and resource with scope: 'Read other researchers' comments on a record.' This is enough to separate it from the sibling search_comments by virtue of the single-record scope, though the contrast is left implicit rather than named.

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 explains the value of the content ('useful for finding the next record and never a source in itself'), which is implied usage guidance, but it never states when to call this tool versus search_comments or get_record, nor any prerequisites.

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