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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 200-comment limit per call, ordering by createdAt asc, denormalization of surfaceSlug across archive boundaries, and filter semantics. However, it does not explicitly state whether replies are included in list_comments or only in get_comment_thread, leaving a slight ambiguity.

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 dense but efficient—three sentences pack all essential information. It front-loads the action, then systematically covers filtering, return behavior, and the alternative tool. No word 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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers filters, pagination limit, ordering, denormalization, and points to get_comment_thread for thread context. It does not fully describe the shape of each returned comment, but it provides enough specifics (e.g., surfaceSlug, createdAt, status) to operate effectively.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it lists and explains target_type values, clarifies the surface filter's scope ('returns every comment anchored to any element of one surface'), spells out status options, and notes mentioning_me is equivalent to REST mentioning=me. It also adds pragmatic context for the author filter ('comments by Argus on this workspace' agent loops).

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 begins with a clear verb and resource ('List comments in a workspace') and specifies the scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_comment_thread by explicitly stating that this tool lists comments while get_comment_thread pulls a single comment plus replies.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use each filter, including concrete use cases ('open threads on this tab', 'comments by Argus on this workspace' agent loops). It also names an alternative tool (get_comment_thread) for a different need, making the decision boundary clear.

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