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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: newest-first ordering, cursor pagination with a 50-item limit, and a security warning that CRM field values are untrusted user content. This goes beyond what annotations provide and helps the agent treat results as data, not instructions.

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 sentences, zero filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, pagination details follow, and the security note is a deliberate, valuable addition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It covers scope, ordering, pagination, and a security caveat. The only gaps are minor: no explicit mention of the return shape (no output schema exists) and no explicit statement about what happens when there are no comments. These are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 20% (only workspaceId has a description), so the description must compensate. It does mention pagination (cursor, limit at most 50) and the 'one record' scope, which maps to objectType+id. However, it doesn't explain the cursor format, the meaning of limit beyond the max, or the workspaceId semantics beyond what the schema already says. The description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the 80% coverage gap.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Lists'), a specific resource ('comments on one record'), a scope constraint ('you may view'), and an ordering ('newest first'). It clearly distinguishes itself from list_activities, get_timeline, and other list tools without needing to open the schema.

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 implies when to use it: when you need comments on a single record the user can view. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope constraint ('one record you may view') plus the sibling list makes the usage context clear. It could be improved by explicitly saying 'use get_timeline for all activity types' or similar, but the guidance is adequate.

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