get_discussion_entry_details

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds a useful scoping detail (including all replies) but does not address authentication, rate limits, or other behavioral aspects. Given the annotation, the bar is lower, and this modest extra context justifies a score of 3.

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 conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words. It is well-structured for easy digestion.

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?

With no output schema, the description should give a clearer idea of what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., author, timestamps, replies as objects). The phrase 'including all its replies' provides some hint, but it remains vague about the exact return structure, leaving incomplete context for the agent.

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 provides descriptions for all three required and one optional parameter, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, 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 states the tool retrieves detailed information about a specific discussion entry and includes all its replies. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listing entries or getting topic details, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool over alternatives such as list_discussion_entries or get_discussion_with_replies. While the scope is implied, there is no explicit guidance or exclusion criteria.

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