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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds essentially nothing behavioral beyond restating the filter, leaving pagination auto-fetch behavior to the schema. With annotations carrying the burden, a baseline 3 is warranted.

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 short sentences with no wasted words and the core action front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though the second sentence is nearly redundant with the schema's feature_id description.

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 read-only list tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage this is minimally adequate, but the "asset" vs "feature" terminology mismatch and the total absence of usage/routing guidance leave an agent with less than ideal information for picking this tool over its many siblings. No output schema exists, so the minimalism is somewhat defensible.

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%, so all three parameters (page, per_page, feature_id) are already documented in the schema, including the auto-pagination defaults. The description's "filter by feature" maps to feature_id but adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 clear verb+resource ("List comments on infrastructure features") with the filtering capability noted. However, it does not distinguish itself from near-identical siblings like list_asset_comments, list_work_order_comments, or list_project_comments, and the description shifts from "asset" in the name to "feature" in the text, which slightly muddies which entity's comments are returned.

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?

"Filter by feature" is the only guidance and merely restates the feature_id parameter. There is no when-to-use context, no statement about when listing all comments is appropriate versus using get_infrastructure_asset_comment for a single record, and no routing away from the sibling list_*_comments tools.

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