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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the result — activation state, bot criteria, and analyzed/replied counters — which tells the agent what a call actually yields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: verb and scope first, then the returned attributes in a compact parenthetical. Dense but no filler; only slight cost is that the parenthetical list is packed rather than being broken out.

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 small read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what population is listed and what per-post information comes back. Minor gaps are whether results are scoped across all brands when brand_id is omitted and whether the list is paginated.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining that brand_id comes from list_brands and what to do when the user names no brand. The description adds nothing about brand_id, so it is a baseline 3 with the schema doing all the work.

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?

Names a specific verb (listar) and a specific resource (publicaciones donde el bot de comentarios responde), plus the exact fields returned (estado activo, response_level, filtro, tono, instrucciones, contadores). That makes it distinguishable from get_comment_bot_log (logs) and update_comment_bot (mutation), though it never names those siblings 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 only implied: the tool obviously answers 'which posts have the comment bot configured and how is it set up'. There is no statement of when to prefer it over get_comment_bot_log or set_post_comment_bot, and no mention that the brand_id parameter is optional and what happens when it is omitted.

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