reddit_verify_comments

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

Adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond the annotations: the endpoint is a POST even though it is a read (ids in the body because 100 do not fit in a URL), and it is cost-equivalent to a read with no state change on Reddit. This resolves the apparent conflict an agent would see between the HTTP method and the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the batch limit, and every sentence carries information. The parenthetical about ids in the body and the 'costs the same as any other read' clause partly restate the readOnly/non-destructive annotation, making it slightly longer than needed.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description supplies the return shape: one row per id, in submission order, each with a status. Combined with the batch limit, format flexibility, and the read-nature clarification, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents the id format, the 1–100 bounds, and bare-vs-t1_ fullname mixing. The description restates the bare/fullname interchangeability and adds a concrete example, but adds no semantics the schema lacks; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource with precise scope: existence/visibility checking for a batch of comment ids up to 100. It is immediately distinguishable from reddit_search_comments, reddit_by_id, and reddit_post_visibility because it operates on known ids and returns status rather than content.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use framing: distinguishing 'deleted by author' from 'removed by moderator' from 'still there', and re-checking previously posted or collected comments. It contrasts against 'a normal comment fetch' implicitly but never names the sibling tool (e.g. reddit_search_comments or reddit_by_id) an agent should prefer for content retrieval.

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