Read a post's comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the newest-first ordering and an explicit prompt-injection warning that returned text is reader-authored content, not instructions. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or the publication default, so not a 5.

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 with zero filler; the resource and ordering are front-loaded and the safety caveat follows. Every sentence earns its place.

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 and no annotations gap, so the description needn't explain return values, and the injection warning covers the main non-obvious risk. It does not mention that results are paginated or how offset interacts with limit, a minor omission given the schema covers those fields.

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?

At 75% schema description coverage, the schema already documents limit (range and default), post_id, and publication (hostname matching), while offset is undocumented. The description adds no syntax, range, or default information beyond that, so it sits at the baseline rather than compensating.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the comments on one of your posts') plus a result ordering ('newest first'), which is more than the title restates. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby sibling get_comment_thread, which is the one tool an agent might confuse it with.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for fetching a post's comment list, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over get_comment_thread or comment_on_post, and no note about needing a connected publication. Adequate but with a clear routing gap.

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