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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description earns credit for adding the prompt-injection caution that comment bodies are untrusted user content and must be treated as data, not instructions. 'With every comment' also implies a complete, unpaginated return, which is useful behavioral context not in the annotations.

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 mutual-exclusion rule, then the security caveat. No padding, and the most decision-relevant constraint is front-loaded after the verb.

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 should explain what comes back; it partially does ('with every comment') but doesn't describe the thread/comment structure or ordering. Given 8 params with half schema-documented, the key calling constraint and safety guidance are covered, leaving only return-shape detail thin.

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 only 50% across 8 params, so the description must compensate; it does by adding the 'exactly one of' mutual-exclusion constraint that the schema (all-optional, no oneOf) does not enforce. It leaves path and locale unaddressed, but their schema descriptions already explain them.

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 the comment threads') and enumerates the five parent entity types it can attach to, plus 'with every comment' to signal a full listing. An agent can distinguish it from get_comment_thread (singular fetch) by the plural scope, though the sibling is not named 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?

Explicitly instructs 'Pass exactly one of fileId, folderId, siteId, orderId or assetId, and optionally status', giving concrete selection conditions. It does not compare against get_comment_thread or say when not to use the broad listing, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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