get_comments_by_id_reactions_summary

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 the HTTP GET method and path structure, which is signature information rather than behavioral detail, and offers no insight into aggregation behavior, reaction types, or pagination.

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 three lines with no filler: the operation is front-loaded, the endpoint is explicit, and the argument list is minimal. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant prose.

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 single-parameter idempotent GET with an output schema, the description is close to adequate, but it does not explain what a 'reaction summary' returns (e.g., counts per reaction type, user-specific data) and does not clarify how it differs from get_comments_by_id_reactions. This leaves an agent to infer the response semantics.

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 must compensate for the undocumented 'id' parameter. It only says 'id: Path parameter,' which conveys the parameter location but not its semantic meaning or format. This is a minimal addition that does not fully compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 ('Get') and resource ('reaction summary'), and the endpoint path makes the comment context explicit. It suggests a distinction from the sibling get_comments_by_id_reactions by using 'summary', but does not detail what the summary includes, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 such as get_comments_by_id_reactions or get_comments_by_id_likes. It simply names the operation without any contextual conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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