get_comments_by_id_reactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior. Since the annotations carry the main safety info, a score of 3 is appropriate – the description doesn't contradict but also doesn't enrich beyond the structured metadata.

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 extremely concise, with a one-line purpose statement and a clean list of arguments. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a clear structure. There is no unnecessary filler or repetition. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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 existence of an output schema (as indicated by the context signal), the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the main parameters and the endpoint, but it lacks any mention of pagination semantics (e.g., maximum limit, page numbering starting at 1) or what 'extended' actually includes. It also doesn't address potential constraints or prerequisites. For a simple list endpoint, this is sufficient but not comprehensive, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain each parameter: id as a path parameter, extended as 'Extended information to include in the response', page as page number, and limit as items per page with the special value 'all'. This adds meaning beyond the schema, but the explanation of 'extended' is vague and doesn't specify what extended information is included. The other parameters are adequately described, so a baseline of 3 is fair.

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 'Get comment reactions' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It is not a tautology and distinguishes the action from other comment-related tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_comments_by_id_reactions_summary, which might cause confusion about whether this returns a list or a summary. The endpoint path reinforces the resource but the purpose is still clear enough.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_comments_by_id_reactions_summary or get_comments_by_id_likes. It only describes the endpoint and parameters. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or why an agent might choose this over related tools. This is a significant gap for a tool with many siblings.

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