Read a comment thread live

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond these: the network wins over PlanVortex storage, X costs one credit per reply returned, and Telegram/Slack have platform-specific limitations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 information-dense with no filler. The core purpose and reconciliation behavior are front-loaded, followed by parameter selection guidance and platform-specific caveats. Every sentence adds a distinct piece of information an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, read-only annotations, and a moderately complex platform landscape, the description covers all critical decisions: which ID to use, when not to use this tool, network-vs-storage precedence, credit cost, and platform limitations. Nothing essential for correct invocation is 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 high at 80%, so baseline is 3. The description adds important semantic value beyond the schema by explaining when id_publication versus id_account should be used, including why Google Business reviews hang off the listing rather than a post. It does not explain limit, offset, or id_organization, but those are adequately covered or self-evident from 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 states a specific action ('Read a thread straight from the social network') on a well-defined resource (comment thread), and clarifies the reconciliation model with PlanVortex. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools like list_comments by framing this as a live network read that wins over stored data.

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 gives explicit selection guidance: pass id_publication for a post, or id_account for a Google Business listing. It further provides when-not-to-use guidance by stating Telegram has no live read and should use list_comments, and Slack has no comment inbox at all. This is exemplary routing behavior.

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