get_post_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: pagination defaults (50, max 100) and an explicit scope boundary ('Never grants whole linked-group history'). That scoping disclosure is the kind of value structured fields don't carry.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core read operation front-loaded and constraints trailing. Every clause carries information, though 'cached native chat name' is slightly jargon-heavy for an external agent.

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 4 optional params and no output schema, the description covers addressing, defaults, scope limits, and the omitted-argument case. Return shape isn't described, but no output schema exists to lean on and the read semantics are unambiguous.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it largely does: it explains postId (specific id vs recent commentable post when omitted), limit ('page, default 50, maximum 100'), and the chat/chatId addressing distinction. It compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (newest comments from a post's own thread), and scopes it to an allowed channel. The phrase 'from its own thread' plus 'Never grants whole linked-group history' implicitly separates it from channel-wide siblings like get_history and get_recent_messages. It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives outright.

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?

Guidance is implied rather than explicit: 'Use chatId or cached native chat name' tells how to address the chat, and 'or a recent commentable post if omitted' covers the omitted-postId case. It never states when to prefer this tool over get_recent_messages or get_message_context, so the agent must infer the selection.

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