tokportal_get_comment_pulse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond these hints. Since the annotations cover the safety profile well, a 3 is appropriate; the description itself does not enrich behavioral expectations (e.g., whether data is real-time, cached, or rate-limited).

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 description is a single concise sentence that fits the tool name. No wasted words. However, it could be slightly more descriptive without losing conciseness (e.g., specifying temporal aggregation or return granularity).

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?

Given 8 optional parameters with 100% schema coverage but generic descriptions, and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It does not explain the return type (e.g., timestamped series, aggregated metrics) or required context (e.g., which parameters are filters vs. required for meaningful results). The lack of output schema increases burden on the description, which it does not address.

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%, but descriptions are generic ('query parameter <name>'). The description provides no additional meaning—e.g., it does not explain what 'pulse' means, how 'to'/'from' relate to time range semantics, nor how 'post', 'account', 'platform', 'country' filter results. With full schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra value.

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 'Get comment pulse analytics' matches the tool name and sibling prefix. It clearly indicates the tool retrieves analytics data related to comments. However, it does not specify the scope (e.g., per account, per post, or aggregated) nor differentiate from analytics siblings like tokportal_get_analytics_series or tokportal_get_account_analytics.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for series trends, use tokportal_get_analytics_series). There is no statement of excluded conditions or required context (e.g., whether a post or account must be specified). The description offers no usage context for the AI agent.

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