Get a redditor's public history

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and open-world, so the description only needs to add scope and context. It discloses that the tool returns recent public posts and comments and implies historical breadth, which goes beyond the schema and annotations without contradicting them.

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 deliver the essential information with no fluff. The data scope is front-loaded, and the follow-up sentence adds meaningful guidance on when the tool matters.

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 read-only tool with two well-documented parameters, the description covers the core behavior and return substance. It could be more precise about what 'recent' means or how results are ordered, but the schema and annotations cover most operational concerns.

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 schema fully documents both parameters, including defaults and the requirement to omit 'u/' from the username. The description does not add further parameter-level detail, 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as retrieving a redditor's recent public posts and comments, matching the title and name. It also frames the purpose—weighing a source's history—which helps an agent understand the resource and its intended use. This is distinct from sibling tools focused on subreddits, threads, or searches.

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 concrete use case: evaluating a source's posting history in context. It explains why the tool should be used for source assessment, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives or list exclusions.

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