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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needed to add operational detail — and it does: a 100-item cap and newest-first ordering are behavior an agent cannot infer from the schema. It stops short of saying what happens past 100 items (no pagination params exist) or what counts as an 'activity event'.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler; the volume and ordering constraint is front-loaded ahead of the threading detail, which is exactly the order an agent needs it in.

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 parentId/root-id sentence usefully explains the returned shape, and the cap plus ordering describe the result set. Remaining gaps — no-permission or empty-result behavior, and whether activity events and comments interleave — are minor for a simple read-only list 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 only 50%: workspaceId is documented in the schema (pointing to list_workspaces and 'personal'), but candidateId has no description and the description text adds nothing about either parameter. With a coverage gap this size, the description should have clarified what candidateId accepts, which it does not.

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 candidate activity events'), adds a hard scope cap (100) and ordering (newest first). It is easy to distinguish from the write sibling add_candidate_comment, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 name and by the required candidateId, but the description never states when to use this instead of list_role_notes, get_candidate, or list_candidate_reviews. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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