Compare discussion volume across terms

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing exactly what is returned (post counts, comments, upvotes, share of group) and explicitly narrowing the behavior to volume-only measurement, which prevents misinterpretation beyond the 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?

Three sentences with no wasted words: the first states the core purpose, the second lists outputs, and the third clarifies boundaries. The most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 read-only comparison tool with simple parameters, the description covers purpose, output shape, and non-goals. The schema covers parameter details, and annotations cover safety, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description reinforces the meaning of 'terms' by mentioning per-term results and group share, but it does not add meaningful detail for subreddit or timeFilter beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states a specific action (compare) applied to a specific resource (Reddit discussion volume for several terms) and enumerates the exact returned metrics. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sentiment and market-share tools, which helps separate it from siblings like research_topic.

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 a clear use context: when you want to compare raw volume of conversation across terms. It also states what the tool does not do ('not sentiment, and it is not market share'), providing useful exclusion criteria, though it does not name specific alternative tools.

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