kaggle_get_discussion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral details: messages are fenced as <untrusted-content> and truncated, which annotations do not cover.

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, no fluff. Every sentence adds value: purpose, content format, and safety hint. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, read-only), an output schema exists, and the description covers purpose, format, and safety, it is fully adequate for correct selection and invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain the parameters (topic_id, max_messages) beyond their names and default. No value added over the schema, so it fails to compensate for the poor 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 clearly states 'Read a discussion topic's messages', specifying a concrete verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like kaggle_search_discussions and kaggle_get_competition. The mention of 'fenced' and 'truncated' adds precision.

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 explicitly says 'READ-ONLY — no reply/comment/vote', guiding the agent not to use this for write operations. However, it does not explicitly compare to search or other alternatives, so some guidance is implicit.

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