Read every reply across all your posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: newest-first ordering, aggregation across all posts, and the inbox-view framing. It does not mention pagination or filtering behavior, but that is documented in the schema.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The core scope ('every reply you have received, newest first, across every post') is front-loaded, and the use-case guidance ('inbox view', 'find what needs answering') adds value in the second sentence without redundancy.

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 list tool with fully documented parameters, the description is nearly complete. It conveys scope, ordering, and when to use it. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the response shape or mention the cursor attribute, though the schema's cursor parameter description already implies its presence.

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%, so the four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 states a specific verb ('read'), resource ('every reply across every post'), and ordering ('newest first'), and explicitly contrasts with the per-post walk by saying 'without walking each post one at a time.' This clearly distinguishes get_all_replies from sibling get_replies.

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 a clear use case: 'use it to find what needs answering.' It implies the alternative of checking posts individually and frames this as the aggregate inbox view, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it.

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