Read a comment thread live

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the network source wins over stored data, X charges one credit per reply returned, and Google Business reviews hang off the listing rather than a post. This gives the agent important operational context before invoking.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: core behavior and precedence, identifier routing, then platform-specific cost and exception. The most important fact is front-loaded, with no filler.

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?

The description covers the key ambiguities an agent would face: choosing between id_publication and id_account, knowing the Google review behavior, understanding the credit cost on X, and recognizing the Telegram fallback to list_comments. With annotations and output schema already present, this is complete enough for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 around 80%, so the schema already handles most parameter meanings. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the relationship between id_publication and id_account and by explaining the Google Business listing case, which the schema alone does not fully convey.

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 action and resource: 'Read a thread straight from the social network' and clarifies that the network version wins over the PlanVortex stored copy. It also distinguishes how to target a post versus a Google Business listing, which separates it from sibling read tools.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent which identifier to pass for which resource type, and gives a clear exclusion: Telegram has no live read, so use list_comments there. This is direct when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance that routes to a sibling tool.

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