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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the purpose: it does not mention pagination, return shape, default status behavior, or any other operational context.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate, though the same brevity leaves gaps elsewhere.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It could be more complete by noting that status is an optional filter and what the tool returns, but the schema and annotations carry most of the weight.

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%, so the schema already documents both articleId and status (including its enum values). The description does not add meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is high.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List comments') and scopes it to an article. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling listing tools like list_articles or from the approve/reject comment tools.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no indication of when the status filter should be applied. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'for an article'.

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