get_post_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function without mentioning rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what format the comments are returned in. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 a single, focused sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval tool and gets directly to the point.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how comments are structured, whether there are authentication requirements, or any limitations. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects when invoking this tool.

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?

The description mentions 'for a specific Reddit post' which hints at the 'post_id' parameter, but doesn't explain any parameters beyond what's already documented in the schema. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting of parameter documentation.

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 action ('Get comments') and target resource ('for a specific Reddit post'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_user_comments' or 'reply_to_post', which would require explicit comparison to earn a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_user_comments' or 'get_reddit_post'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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