explore_reddit_discussions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about output fields (upvote_ratio, age_in_days) and pagination (next_page_token), which helps the agent interpret results. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, or any side effects.

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 and front-loaded, with the purpose stated immediately. Each sentence provides actionable guidance (checking upvote_ratio, age_in_days, using next_page_token) without unnecessary fluff. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

The description gives some context about interpreting results and pagination, but it is insufficient for a tool with 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations. It lacks parameter explanations, does not clarify differences from sibling tools like 'extract_public_opinion', and does not specify any prerequisites or constraints. The overall guidance is incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 for parameter meanings, but it does not. It mentions 'next_page_token' which is not an input parameter (the schema has 'page_token'), and it provides no explanations for the six input parameters. The description's guidance focuses on output interpretation rather than input semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'gauge public opinion and market acceptance' via Reddit discussions. It uses a specific verb ('explore') and resource ('Reddit discussions'), but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'extract_public_opinion', which sounds similar.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'STEP 2: SENTIMENT EXPLORATION' and 'Use this to gauge public opinion and market acceptance.' It gives a clear use case but does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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