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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context of its own (e.g., what unfiltered calls return, ordering, or volume) beyond the filtering hint, so it sits at the with-annotations baseline.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the filter scope; nothing is wasted. The second sentence is a fragment that could carry slightly more routing information in the same space, but the sizing is appropriate.

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, read-only list endpoint with full schema coverage and no output schema to explain, the description covers what the tool does and how to scope it. Only the absence of sibling differentiation and unfiltered-call behavior keeps it from being fully complete.

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 the schema documents all three parameters including pagination defaults and UUID format. The description only echoes the feature_id filter, adding no semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 scoped to infrastructure features (assets). It distinguishes itself implicitly from list_asset_comments by the 'infrastructure' qualifier, but never calls out that sibling or clarifies the asset-vs-feature naming mismatch between the tool name and the description.

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' hints at how to scope the call, but there is no when-to-use guidance, no mention that feature_id is optional (omitting it lists all comments), and no routing to the alternative list_asset_comments or get_infrastructure_asset_comment for single-record retrieval.

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