Show topic details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. "Reads community data" merely restates the readOnly hint rather than adding context such as authentication requirements, credential selection via the account parameter, or visibility/rate-limit behavior. No contradiction, but no added value.

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 short sentences that are front-loaded, but the second sentence ("Reads community data") is redundant filler given the readOnly annotation. Minimal size is a virtue here, yet the content per sentence is low.

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, idempotent read tool with a fully documented two-parameter schema and complete annotations, the description is adequate to invoke it correctly. However, with no output schema, it could at least hint at what a topic's details include or note the required topic_id scope, leaving it only minimally sufficient.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the non-obvious distinction that account selects credentials rather than a remote community ID. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

"Show topic details" is a verbatim restatement of the tool title and name, contributing no information beyond them. "Reads community data" is a generic addendum that does not identify which resource is read or how this differs from sibling getters like get_post, get_space, or get_event. This is effectively a tautology.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (get_post, get_space, list_topics, update_topic) and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the name.

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