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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations: states the required permission role, the default filtering behavior, the shape of returned thread data, and flags that askContext.label is page-supplied data rather than instructions — a security-relevant disclosure an agent could not infer elsewhere.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and permission requirement, then defaults, then return shape. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the askContext sentence is long yet justified by the injection 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing thread structure, anchor, resolved state, comment fields, and askContext. Combined with the auth requirement and default filter, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the load. It fully explains includeResolved (open-only vs. every thread), and 'on an artifact' with required 'id' makes the id parameter's meaning inferable, though it never says outright that id is the artifact identifier.

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+resource ('List comment threads on an artifact') and immediately scopes what a thread contains, which separates it cleanly from comments_reply and comments_resolve in the sibling list. An agent knows this is the read path for comments without opening 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?

Gives a clear precondition ('needs comment role or higher') and the key behavioral fork: default returns only open threads, includeResolved returns all. It does not explicitly name comments_reply/comments_resolve as the alternatives for writing, so it falls short of a 5, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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