Comments on an article or profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description is free to add domain behavior and does: comments carry likes and dislikes, replies are linked via `reply_to` to a parent comment id, content is Persian, and default ordering is newest first. It also warns that `author` is the name stored at comment time and may be stale after a rename — a genuinely useful caveat not present in structured fields. It stops short of describing volume, pagination limits, or what a partial/empty result looks like.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the usage hint follows immediately; nothing is padded. The trailing sentences about `reply_to` and `author` are informative but describe response fields in a block that an agent may read as input guidance, a minor structural misplacement.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return shape and largely does: comments with likes/dislikes, nested replies linked by `reply_to`, `author` naming, Persian language, newest-first ordering. Combined with four fully documented parameters and complete annotations, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only pagination limits and a notion of result size are missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the default ordering ("newest first by default") that the `sort` enum already declares and mentions `author`/`reply_to`, which are response fields rather than inputs. It adds no format or interpretation detail for `post_id`, `page`, or `limit` beyond the 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Read the public reader comments under a Gamefa article or a game/film profile, with likes and dislikes." That is unambiguous about what is returned and where it comes from. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling gf_reviews, which an agent could easily confuse with comments given the line "what do readers think of X".

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?

"Use for 'what do readers think of X'" plus the note that profile comments hold user verdicts and ratings gives implied usage context. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative, so the gf_reviews vs gf_comments boundary is left to inference — the single most consequential routing decision for this tool.

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