get_discussion_entry_details

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a read operation, and the description's 'Get' matches this. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., authentication, rate limits, or side effects). It is consistent but uninformative beyond the annotation.

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 concise with a clear purpose sentence followed by an organized Args block. Every sentence adds value, though the structure could be slightly more compact.

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 the output schema exists, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It mentions inclusion of replies. However, it lacks any context on prerequisites or edge cases, which would make it more complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description's docstring compensates by explaining each parameter (e.g., 'include_replies: Fetch and include replies (default: True)'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's titles and types.

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 the action ('Get detailed information') and the resource ('a specific discussion entry including all its replies'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_discussion_topic_details' by focusing on entries rather than topics.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_discussion_with_replies' or 'get_discussion_topic_details'. No use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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