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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds two non-annotation facts: results are cursor-paginated and the call requires the `tasks:read` API-key scope. It omits ordering, whether replies are included, and page-size behavior.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the action and resource, then pagination, then the auth scope. No filler and nothing that could be trimmed without losing information.

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 read-only list tool with rich annotations, this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema and 40% schema coverage the agent still cannot tell what a 'ref' looks like or how `limit` behaves. Those are the remaining gaps an agent would need to call it 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 coverage is only 40% (account and workspace are documented, ref/limit/cursor are bare), so the description must compensate. It partly does — 'by ref' anchors the required parameter and 'Cursor-paginated' explains the cursor — but `limit` is explained nowhere and the expected ref format (ID vs. slug) remains unstated.

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 on a task') plus the required keying ('by ref'), which suffices to separate it from pm_list_comment_reactions, pm_create_task_comment, and pm_update_task_comment. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

Usage is implied by the resource name — you call it when you need the comment thread of a known task. There is no statement of when not to use it, no mention of alternatives (e.g. pm_get_subtasks or pm_read_activity_log), and no prerequisite guidance beyond the scope note.

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