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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the non-obvious behavior that a 'hidden enrichment' payload accompanies each comment, spells out what that metadata blob contains (element purpose, DOM slice, viewport, console messages), and states the default filtering behavior. It could say more about pagination or the shape of the returned 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, with the parenthetical enumerations earning their space by describing non-obvious return content. Dense but not padded; only the default/filter clause overlaps with schema information.

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 and no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral weight, and it does describe the returned fields and filtering default. Pagination via cursor is covered by the schema, but the description says nothing about result ordering or limits, leaving a small gap for a list 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the status default and enum. The description's only added value is clarifying that 'all' means 'include resolved', which is marginal over what the schema provides; baseline 3.

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 comments left on a website') and goes further by enumerating the enrichment payload returned (page_path, target_selector, deployment_id, metadata blob). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling list_comments, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives a filter default ('Defaults to open comments; pass status:all to include resolved'), which is usage of a parameter rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no explicit statement of when this tool should be chosen over list_comments or read_website, so usage is only implied.

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