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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive writes; the description adds context the annotations do not carry — that @[Name]/@[email] mentions trigger notifications to other people and that body content is parsed as Markdown. That notification side effect is the key behavioral fact an agent needs before posting on someone's behalf.

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, front-loaded fragments with no filler: action first, then mention/notification semantics, then content format. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema, and the ordering puts the most decision-relevant information first.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to carry action, side effects, and content format — all of which it does. Minor omissions like error behavior on an invalid key or permission requirements keep it short of a full 5.

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 already documents both parameters (key 'Like APP-123', body 'The comment'), so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by specifying that body is Markdown and that mention syntax is @[Name] or @[email], which materially affects how the body should be constructed.

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 states a concrete verb and resource — commenting on an item — and clarifies authorship with 'as you', so the agent knows this creates a comment attributed to the authenticated user. It does not name or contrast with edit_comment or delete_comment, so the sibling differentiation is left to the tool name alone.

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 only implied: the action of commenting makes the when obvious, but there is no guidance on prerequisites (e.g. the item key must exist), no mention of when to prefer edit_comment over posting a new comment, and no exclusions. Adequate for a simple append operation but with a clear gap.

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