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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds nothing further about behavior: it doesn't say whether comments are returned in chronological order, whether they are paginated or truncated, or whether deleted comments are included.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but it is at the edge of under-specification for a tool whose output shape is unknown. It earns its place yet leaves obvious room for one more clarifying clause.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, so the burden is modest. However, there is no output schema, so the description should at least sketch what a comment record contains or how the list is ordered and bounded; that omission is the main gap.

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%, with both issue_key and the optional account parameter documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, but given the schema's completeness that is acceptable rather than penalizing.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get all comments on a Jira issue'), which clearly separates it from the write-side siblings jira_add_comment, jira_edit_comment and jira_delete_comment, and from confluence_get_comments. It stops short of explicitly naming any alternative, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 only implied by the verb: an agent can infer 'call this when you need the comment thread of an issue.' There is no guidance on when to prefer jira_get_issue instead, nor any note about prerequisites such as needing the issue key to exist or having browse permission.

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