get_more_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds context beyond that by stating 'works anonymously' and by describing the returned shape: 'author, body excerpt, score, link.' This gives behavior insight without overstating side effects. It slightly misses possible failure modes or volume limits, but the combination with annotations is strong.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first says what it does, the second gives the data flow and return fields, and the third states the prerequisite and key constraint. It is front-loaded and free of redundant phrasing.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description discloses the return fields, identifies the dependency on get_post_comments, explains the 'more' node source, and asserts anonymity and read-only behavior. Given the small parameter count and rich annotations, the description satisfies all important context an agent needs.

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 100% and both parameters already have clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that comment_ids must come from a 'more' node and says 'do NOT invent ids,' adding practical workflow context but no new parameter format or type details beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Expand truncated ‘load more comments’ stubs in a thread.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from get_post_comments, as this one fetches hidden comments from 'more' nodes while get_post_comments surfaces the thread and its stubs. The scope is fully defined.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: call get_post_comments first to obtain the thread and 'more' node ids, then pass those ids here. It also warns against inventing ids and notes that it works anonymously and read-only, which helps an agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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