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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: cursor pagination via nextCursor, a per-comment cap of 50 embedded replies, and a replies_truncated flag with a REST endpoint to retrieve the rest. It omits ordering, permissions, and the read-only nature (implied only by 'List').

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler; the core purpose leads, followed by the pagination contract and the truncation edge case. Every sentence carries operational value.

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 output schema, the description usefully explains the two return-shape elements an agent must act on (nextCursor and replies_truncated). Other comment fields and result ordering remain unspecified, a minor gap for a read-only listing tool.

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 100%, so limit, cursor, and report_id are already documented in the schema. The description only restates cursor usage ('pass the returned nextCursor'), adding no syntax, format, or default detail beyond what is structured.

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 and resource ('List comments + replies') plus the scope ('on a report'), which separates it from the sibling list_website_comments. An agent can tell immediately which collection is returned.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the pagination mechanics tell the agent how to iterate, and the REST fallback hints at when the embedded replies are insufficient, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of reply_to_comment / set_comment_status as related alternatives.

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