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

The annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it says nothing about whether pagination applies, what fields the comment records contain, or that the comment list is scoped to a single document.

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?

The route string is duplicated verbatim in the first two sentences, wasting half the text. The operation ID and describe_operation pointer are useful but come after the redundancy.

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 two-parameter, nested-object endpoint with no output schema and 0% param documentation, the description should explain what a comment record is and how an agent should scope the query. Instead it leaves the agent reliant on describe_operation.

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%, so the description should compensate, but it does not. The path template does implicitly show that contractId and documentId are path segments, which is some help, but the 'query' object parameter and its allowed keys are completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 raw HTTP route twice, from which an agent can infer 'list comments on a document belonging to a contract'. It never states the purpose in words, and it does not distinguish this route from the very similar sibling get_contracts_by_contractId_documents_b_cd73216c02e24e786e583056.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this endpoint rather than the sibling document endpoints or the generic execute_read/find_contracts tools. The only routing hint is that describe_operation provides native request schemas, which is about schema lookup, not tool selection.

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