get_comments

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the comments are user-generated correspondence, unverified by NARA, and not authoritative. That trust caveat is exactly the kind of information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by content value and then the trust caveat. No filler; every sentence carries information an agent needs to use the result responsibly.

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 does the important work of characterizing the return content and warning against treating it as a source. It stops short of describing volume, paging, or what an empty result means, but nothing critical is missing for a read-only lookup.

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 itself documents naid, refresh (cache behavior and cost) and max_chars. The description adds no parameter syntax or defaulting detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 ('Read other researchers' comments on a record') and immediately frames what the comments contain, so an agent can distinguish it from search_comments without opening either schema. The scope is narrow and unambiguous.

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 description explains how to interpret the output ('useful for finding the next record and never a source in itself') but never says when to call this tool versus alternatives such as search_comments or get_record, nor any prerequisite. Usage is only implied by the content framing.

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