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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral detail: newest-first ordering, cursor pagination semantics, a hard limit of 50, and an explicit prompt-injection warning about untrusted CRM field content, which annotations cannot express.

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, behavior first and the security caveat second. Nothing is padded and the operational facts are front-loaded before the warning.

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 full annotations and no output schema, the description covers ordering, pagination, limit, permission scope, and a safety caveat. It is nearly complete, missing only parameter-level detail for objectType/id/workspaceId.

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 is documented), so the description should compensate. It clarifies limit (max 50) and cursor pagination but says nothing about objectType format, the id/uuid requirement, or when workspaceId is needed — leaving most params to bare schema types.

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 (Lists) and resource (comments) scoped to 'one record', and adds ordering ('newest first'). It is clearly distinguishable from add_comment and get_timeline without opening any 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?

Implies usage via 'on one record you may view', which conveys a permission scope, but never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_timeline or list_activities, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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