read_discussion

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 covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the order semantics ('Desc selects newest posts; either order displays the selected posts oldest-first') and pagination ('Follow Next call for more'). This is meaningful additional context that helps the agent understand the tool's behavior.

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 two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Read a public thread page'), then packs the most important behavioral nuances (order semantics and pagination) into the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with strong annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: what it reads, the order semantics, and pagination. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the 'Follow Next call for more' hint, which implies a paginated response. The main gap is the lack of parameter-level detail for limit and offset, but the schema provides their constraints.

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 carries the burden for parameter semantics. However, the description does not explain any of the four parameters (discussion_id, limit, order, offset) beyond the order semantics. The order parameter's behavior is partially explained ('Desc selects newest posts'), but limit and offset are not mentioned. The description adds some value for the order parameter but leaves the others to be inferred from 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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('public thread page'), and adds a distinguishing detail: 'Desc selects newest posts; either order displays the selected posts oldest-first.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings like list_discussions or search_posts, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling.

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 on how to use the tool: 'Desc selects newest posts; either order displays the selected posts oldest-first. Follow Next call for more.' This explains the order semantics and pagination behavior, which is essential for correct usage. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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