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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that comments are scoped to a version and breakpoint, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, empty-result behavior, or permissions, so an agent cannot predict the response shape or side effects.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition and followed by the most useful flag. The parenthetical '(wireframe or mockup)' is slightly redundant with the schema enum but costs little.

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 tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema or annotations, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually but omits return-field details, ordering, and pagination. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including open_only. The description restates open_only's behavior without adding format, defaults, or interaction detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource (review comments on a wireframe/mockup, pinned to a version and breakpoint) which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling tools like get_review or set_comment_resolved. It reads as a noun phrase describing the collection rather than an explicit 'list X' verb, but the resource and scope are clear.

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 only guidance is 'Set open_only true to get only the unresolved ones,' which is parameter semantics rather than when-to-use advice. It never says when to call this instead of get_review or how it relates to set_comment_resolved, leaving the agent to infer the retrieval workflow.

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