reddit_subreddit_top

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing the return structure ('score, author, comments, permalink plus an `after` cursor') and an example ('name=\'science\' t=\'month\''). This provides useful behavioral context beyond the safety profile, such as pagination support via the after cursor. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise: two sentences plus an example. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides return details and a concrete usage example. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no unnecessary fluff.

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 simple read-only listing tool with a detailed schema and helpful annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, return fields, example, and pagination cursor. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly mention parameter constraints (e.g., t allowed values) or that 'after' is for subsequent pages, but the schema already provides these details. Overall, the description plus schema and annotations give a complete picture.

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% (all four parameters have descriptions). The description itself does not add much parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but it does provide an example (name='science', t='month') that clarifies how to use the parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not go beyond.

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 the tool's function: 'Get the TOP posts of a subreddit for a time window.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('TOP posts of a subreddit'), and includes the time-window scoping. It also distinguishes from siblings like reddit_subreddit_posts by explicitly emphasizing 'TOP' and 'highest-scoring posts.'

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 implies when to use this tool (for top posts by score within a time window) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It lacks guidance like 'use this instead of reddit_subreddit_posts when you need highest-scoring posts' or 'not for sorting by new.' The context is implied but not explicit.

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