get_user_comments

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the return shape (body, score, subreddit, parent post title, timestamps), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. However it says nothing about pagination depth, result caps, behavior for nonexistent or suspended users, or whether private accounts return empty results.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return fields, then the use case. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is soft filler compared to the specificity of the first.

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 simple four-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers what it does and what comes back. The remaining gap is pagination behavior, which the 'after' parameter documents only partially.

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 four parameters including the sort enum and the 'after' cursor are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about sorting semantics or pagination behavior beyond that, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get comment history for a Reddit user'), which inherently separates it from siblings like get_user_posts and get_user_profile. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation relies on the reader inferring 'comments' vs 'posts'.

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?

'Useful for understanding a user's opinions and activity' hints at a use case but gives no when-to-use versus when-to-use-an-alternative guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when get_user_posts or search would be a better fit.

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