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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that—no information on what the field counts represent, aggregation behavior, or any scoping/permission requirements—so with the lower bar set by annotations it still contributes no behavioral context.

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?

Very short, but the first sentence is duplicated verbatim, which is pure waste. The remaining content (operation ID and a pointer to describe_operation) is front-loaded but carries almost no substance.

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 is responsible for conveying what a 'field-counts' response looks like and what the nested query object accepts; it does neither. An agent would have to call describe_operation before it could invoke this tool with confidence, making the definition incomplete on its own.

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 0% for the two parameters (an open 'query' object and an empty 'params' object with additionalProperties=false). The description does not explain what belongs in query or params; the single hint that describe_operation holds the native request schema is a referral, not parameter semantics, so it only barely exceeds a total gap.

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 only repeats the REST path 'GET /api/comments/field-counts' twice, which restates the title rather than explaining what 'field counts' means in plain language (counts of which fields, scoped by what?). A verb and resource are present only in URL form; an agent cannot distinguish this from get_comments_f4c37d690dc3849e975c2997 or get_comments_mentions without guessing from the path.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer (get_comments, get_comments_mentions, get_comments_users all exist). The only actionable pointer is 'describe_operation provides native request schemas', which tells the agent where to look for parameters, not when to select this endpoint.

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