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

Since `readOnlyHint: true` and `destructiveHint: false` are present in the annotations, the description is largely redundant in confirming it is a safe read operation. It adds no other unique behavioral context (e.g., performance characteristics or data constraints).

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 concise and uses a single sentence. However, its brevity results in a lack of meaningful content, as it fails to communicate necessary operational detail.

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?

Given the required `policyId` and the presence of `limit` and `offset` parameters, the description is too sparse. It omits the crucial detail that the comments must belong to a specific policy.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must define the purpose of the parameters. It fails to explain that policyId is the required identifier or what limit/offset control.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('policy review comments') and the intent ('Read'). However, it is highly generalized and does not use strong linguistic cues to differentiate it from similar list tools like list_policy or list_sop_comments.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain if it is the correct choice for filtering comments versus getting all comments for a policy.

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