get_discussion

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the call-count budget, the exact return shape (body, topic_id, counters, url), and how embedding items interacts with pagination (next_offset). Only auth/permission expectations and rate limits are left unstated.

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?

Extremely dense but front-loaded: the identifying statement comes first, followed by output shape, optional expansion, and routing. Every clause (call counts, next_offset, sibling pointers) carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so (body, topic_id, counters, url, embedded thread_items, next_offset). It also covers the include_items toggle's cost and paging implication, leaving nothing an agent needs 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 all five parameters are already documented there, including strip_html and items_body_max_chars. The description only re-ties items_limit to include_items (which the schema already states), so it adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('One discussion by numeric id or short key') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings list_discussions and get_thread_markdown. An agent can tell it apart from list_discussions/lookup tools without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use get_thread_markdown for prose, list_discussions for a group's threads, and this tool for a single discussion (plus the include_items variant). It also flags the cost tradeoff (1 call vs 2 with include_items) that drives the choice.

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