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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by warning that feedback is untrusted user content and by instructing callers to follow pagination for complete results. This is meaningful additional transparency.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and capability set, while the second adds the two most important operational details: untrusted content and pagination. Every phrase earns its place.

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 15-parameter tool, the description provides a solid overview: scope ('in one project'), available features, and the pagination requirement. The output schema and rich parameter descriptions cover the rest, so the agent is not left without necessary context. Minor gap: no explicit guidance about when to choose this over search_comments.

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 high at 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description only broadly references 'filters' without detailing specific parameters, so it adds little parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List website or asset feedback in one project.' It also names the key capabilities (filters, stable IDs, links, totals, pagination), which distinguishes it from mutation tools like update_comment or export_comments. The listing scope is clearly different from get_comment and search_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 implies a listing use case and provides the important instruction to follow pagination when complete results are needed. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over search_comments or other sibling tools, nor does it state exclusions. Usage context is present but left mostly implicit.

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