get_event_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the return format (array of comment objects with author, text, timestamp), which is useful behavioral context. It does not mention pagination or error behavior, but with annotations covering the safety profile, this is sufficient.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a concise return value explanation. Every word is meaningful, no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple, schema covers all parameters, annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists (though not shown). The description states the return shape, making the tool fully usable. There's no missing critical context.

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 100%: both event_id and fields are fully described in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses clear verb ('Get') and specific resource ('comments/discussion') tied to an event ID, and states the return type. This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling getters like get_event_info or get_event_media.

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 clearly implies the usage context: call this when you need comments for a specific event. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is so specific that no confusion arises among the many sibling tools.

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