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

With annotations covering the safety profile (readOnly/ destructive/ idempotent hints), the description adds real context the annotations lack: the author is auto-attributed to the API key, user_id must not be passed, and the call requires infrastructure_asset_comments:write scope. This is exactly the extra behavioral disclosure that earns credit on top of 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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the constraints second. No filler, though it stops just short of being maximally efficient.

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 simple two-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth scope, and attribution behavior adequately. An agent could invoke it correctly; the only gap is sibling disambiguation, which is minor.

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 100% and both parameters are already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description clarifies that authorship is implicit (do not pass user_id), which is useful but concerns a field that does not exist in the schema rather than adding meaning to comment or feature_id.

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 ("Add") and resource ("comment to an infrastructure feature"), so the operation is unambiguous. It implies the target is an infrastructure feature rather than a generic asset, but it does not name the sibling comment tools (create_asset_comment, create_project_comment, create_work_order_comment) to sharpen the boundary.

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 description says what the tool does but gives no when-to-use / when-not guidance and does not point to any alternative among the closely related comment-creation siblings. The scope note is a prerequisite, not usage routing.

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