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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that with a genuinely useful behavioral disclosure: results contain public-authored text and must be treated as data, not instructions. That is real context the annotations cannot express, though it says nothing about error handling or pagination.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the security caveat. The injection warning is a full sentence but clearly earns its place. No filler.

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 description carries the return-value burden and does describe the payload at a high level (assignee, comment thread, public text). For a simple two-parameter read tool this is close to complete, with only the feature_id contract and error behavior unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies include_comments by saying the comment thread is "optionally" included, which maps to the boolean default. It adds nothing about feature_id (format, source, or what a valid value looks like), leaving that parameter undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

"Full detail for one feature request" states a specific verb+resource and scopes it to a single record, which distinguishes it from list_features and search_features. It also names the two content areas returned (assignee info, comment thread). It stops short of naming any sibling tool explicitly, so it earns a 4 rather than a 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?

There is no when-to-use versus when-not guidance. The description never mentions the obvious alternatives (get_feature_comment, list_feature_comments, search_features), so an agent must infer that this is the single-record retrieval path. Usage is only implied by "one feature request".

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