regulations_comment_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds no additional behavioral details such as error behavior, return fields, or rate limits, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 sentence with no filler; the action and the required parameter are both front-loaded. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose.

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 one-parameter, read-only detail tool, the description plus schema and annotations are sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. No output schema exists, but 'detailed information' is an adequate expectation for a detail endpoint; documenting specific return fields would be a nice-to-have rather than a necessity.

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 input schema fully documents the single commentId parameter, including a concrete example format, so schema coverage is 100%. The description only restates that the ID is a comment ID and contributes no new semantic information 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 pairs a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('detailed information for a specific public comment') and identifies the exact selection key ('comment ID'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling search tools like regulations_search_comments, which find comments rather than return one comment's detail.

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 phrase 'by its comment ID' implies the tool is appropriate when a specific comment ID is already known and full detail is needed. However, it does not explicitly reference sibling tools such as regulations_search_comments or state when not to use this tool, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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