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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: no auth needed, rate-limited, and hits return only a short excerpt around the match rather than full/private content. It leaves out ordering and pagination behavior, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three tight clauses, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then behavioral notes. Slightly idiosyncratic phrasing ('never the private floors') costs a little clarity but wastes no words.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain returns; it does say each hit includes a short excerpt, but omits result ordering, pagination, and any meaning for `limit`. Adequate but with clear gaps for a search tool.

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 only 50%: `q` is documented in the schema itself, and the description's 'q is required and must be non-empty' merely restates it. The `limit` parameter (default 5, max 10) is undocumented in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate for the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('search comments') and bounds the corpus to 'visible comments on published public posts', which separates it from list_post_comments and the admin_* comment listing tools. It does not name an alternative sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'Public endpoint: no auth required' note implies the context in which this tool applies (anonymous/public search) and rate-limiting warns against heavy use. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to siblings such as list_post_comments or search_public_posts for other needs.

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