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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure and provides almost none: it does not say whether this is a read or a write, whether authentication or a media-id argument is required, whether results are paginated, or what a response looks like. The single clause only vaguely implies the tool operates on a media id.

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?

Five words is not conciseness but under-specification; there is no front-loaded purpose statement, no object, and no actionable content for the agent to act on.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an ambiguous verb, the description needs to establish read/write nature, scope, and return behavior. It supplies none of these, so an agent cannot call the tool correctly without guessing from the sibling names.

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 the one parameter (notification_message) is fully documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds nothing about parameters and notably does not explain why a notification message is the sole input for a comments operation, leaving a semantic mismatch unaddressed.

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?

"Comments on a media id" names a resource but the verb is ambiguous: it could mean "retrieve the comments for a media" or "post a comment on a media". Since a sibling named media_comment exists, an agent cannot tell which of the two handles reads vs. writes from this description alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus media_comment, media_like, or the other media-related siblings. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context of any kind.

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