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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive; the description adds useful behavior beyond that, including the authenticated multi-space prerequisite and a security note to treat stored content as data, not instructions. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the core purpose before the endpoint and usage notes. The ChangeRequests context is slightly tangential but earns its place by explaining the system model around comments.

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 endpoint with a complete input schema, the description covers purpose, endpoint, authentication flow, and a relevant data-handling caution. No output schema exists, but nothing critical appears missing for invoking 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 100%, so the schema already documents subjectId, subjectType, and targetSpaceId. The description reinforces the targetSpaceId flow but does not need to add much parameter detail.

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 clearly states the tool lists comments attached to a Busabase subject and gives the exact GET endpoint. It is easy to distinguish from comments_create and activity/asset list tools, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling for contrast.

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 provides clear context for multi-space accounts: call auth_verify, ask the user which space to use, and pass targetSpaceId. It does not explicitly explain when not to use this tool, but the usage context is specific enough for selection.

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