Read a DevForum thread

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

Annotations already signal readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important behavioral detail beyond annotations: Markdown output, original post plus selected replies, accepted answer hoisting, and preservation of code blocks. This is meaningful context for an agent deciding what the tool returns and how it selects content.

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 three sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the output format and key behaviors are stated, and the sibling guidance is appended without redundancy.

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 read-only tool with safety annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough operational context: what is returned, how the result is ordered, how URLs are accepted, and how to get the rest. It lacks mention of rate limits or auth, but those are not essential for selecting and invoking a safe read tool.

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 75%, so the schema already documents topic, topic_id, and max_posts. The description adds that topic accepts a full URL as well as an id, which is useful. However, max_tokens has no description in the schema and is not explained in the description either, leaving one parameter undocumented.

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 ('Read'), a specific resource ('DevForum topic'), and the output format ('as Markdown'). It differentiates itself from the sibling get_replies by clarifying that it returns the original post plus the most useful replies with the accepted answer hoisted.

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 explicit routing guidance: 'Use get_replies to page through the rest.' This tells an agent when to switch to the sibling tool. It does not enumerate exclusions like search scenarios, but the context is clear enough for the common read-vs-paginate choice.

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