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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses pagination (50 per page, hasNextPage), sort order, and field-level semantics including the null case for apiKeyName and the authorship restriction on managing comments. It omits permission/scoping requirements and rate limits.

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?

Core purpose and pagination are front-loaded, followed by the return-field inventory in a single dense sentence. Everything earns its place, though the long field enumeration makes it slightly heavy for a list tool.

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 exists, so the description must describe returns - and it does, enumerating id, canManage, author, apiKeyName, text, timestamps, attachments, and hasNextPage. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 page, count, and issueKey are already fully documented in the schema. The description's pagination note largely restates the schema's 'up to 50' count behavior and adds no new syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Lists an issue's comments') plus ordering ('oldest first'), which is unambiguous against siblings like get_issue_history or list_issues. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Provides cross-tool routing context: canManage is flagged 'for edit_comment/delete_comment' and attachment ids are 'usable with get_attachment', which tells the agent why to call this tool. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or stating it is the only way to enumerate comments.

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