read_comments

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false). Going beyond them, the description discloses that results are inherently incomplete, a platform-level gap (weixin 留言 unsupported), and a cursor-based pagination contract – genuinely useful behavioral context not present in structured fields.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no padding; the most important caveat (results are not exhaustive) comes first. Slightly terse for the number of undocumented parameters, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a six-parameter read tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description only addresses pagination and partiality. An agent still cannot tell what url vs content_ref means, how platform selects behavior, or what the limits govern, so it is not complete enough to call confidently.

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 0% across six parameters, so the description must carry the burden, but it explains none of url, limit, platform, content_ref, or replies_limit. It also refers to 'next_cursor' while the input schema names the parameter 'cursor', leaving the pagination parameter loosely mapped.

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 names a specific verb+resource (查看评论/回复) and immediately scopes it ('有限评论与可见回复，不代表全部评论'), which tells an agent this is a partial-read tool distinct from read_content. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 one clear operational rule – continue with the next batch when next_cursor is returned – and one platform exclusion (公众号留言暂不支持). However, it never says when to choose read_comments over read_content or search, nor what prerequisites the url/content_ref imply, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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