Post Comments

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

With readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false declared, the description goes well beyond the annotations: it warns of paid API credit consumption, mandates confirm=true, and explicitly reconciles the read-like POST nature ("do not publish to social platforms"). It also discloses a real constraint beyond the schema, that cursor batching and comma-separated cursors are unsupported.

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 first sentence of each block is front-loaded with the essential fact, and the return-field list is dense but useful. The trailing credit/confirm sentence sits apart from the flow of the rest and reads slightly appended, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description enumerates the post fields and per-comment fields (including nested replies), plus pagination, trim, auth/credit, and confirm requirements. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine cursor semantics not evident from the schema alone: one opaque cursor exactly as returned by more.cursor/replies.more.cursor, no batching, and the POST fallback for oversized cursors. It also clarifies trim's effect on response weight.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Retrieves comments and post details from a Reddit post by URL") and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent immediately knows what it gets. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely-named siblings reddit_post and reddit_post_comments_post, leaving potential ambiguity inside the reddit family.

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 gives concrete operating guidance: use GET for normal requests, switch to POST when an opaque cursor grows too large, pass exactly one cursor with no batching, and requires confirm=true. What it lacks is an explicit statement of when to pick this over reddit_post or reddit_post_comments_post.

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