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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description contributes the one genuinely new behavioral fact — comments are returned in chronological thread order — but says nothing about pagination, limits, or what happens for an issue with no comments.

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?

A single short sentence with the ordering constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably undersized for the semantic gaps it leaves unaddressed.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient, but the undocumented identifier format and absent return-shape or ordering-vs-pagination detail leave real gaps an agent could stumble on.

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?

There is one required parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the semantics. It implies the parameter identifies an issue, but never states the expected format (numeric ID, key, or URL), which is precisely the information an agent needs to populate it correctly.

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 ('List') and resource ('an issue's comments') with an added ordering qualifier. It does not differentiate itself from adjacent read/list siblings such as list_attachments or get_issue, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never references the related write siblings (save_comment, retract_comment) or how to obtain the required issue identifier first. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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