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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive/no-open-world, but the description adds real value beyond them: it clarifies that only URLs are returned (no download/import) and warns that results contain public-authored text that must be treated as data, not instructions. Return format and pagination remain unstated, keeping it from a 5.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then the no-download boundary, then the safety warning. Nothing is redundant and every sentence carries distinct 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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers scope, that only URLs (not files) are returned, and the untrusted-content caveat. Minor gaps are the absence of pagination/ordering hints and explicit sibling routing.

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 100% and the single comment_id parameter is documented in-schema as coming 'From list_feature_comments.' The description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 image URLs attached to a live request comment or internal note') with scope qualifiers, letting an agent distinguish it from the sibling list_feature_images (feature-level) and get_feature_comment. The verb+resource are unambiguous.

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 scope condition ('attached to a comment or internal note') implies when to use it, and 'No download or import' draws a boundary, but it never names alternatives such as list_feature_images or explains when a different tool should be chosen instead. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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