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

The description discloses the main behavior: posting an internal comment, character limit, ownership, and authorship. It does not mention error conditions or response shape, but annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false) are consistent and no contradictions exist.

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 description is two sentences, front-loads the action and resource, and contains no redundant or filler content.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly: what it does, constraints, use cases, and ownership. No additional details are needed.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, and the description reinforces them by explaining that body is the comment text, that verification_id is a UUID returned by specific verification tools, and that the comment is internal and authored by the connected user.

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 uses a specific verb ('Post') and identifies the resource ('internal comment on a verification you own'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as add_verification_tags, list_verification_comments, or update_verification_comment.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use it for client feedback, decisions, or context worth keeping with the report') and notes the ownership requirement, but does not explicitly contrast it with alternative comment-management tools.

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