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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond the annotations: results are paginated and returned newest-first, and each comment exposes an id consumed by delete_task_comment. It stops short of stating rate limits or total-count semantics.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and the ordering constraint front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers ordering, pagination, and the key downstream use of the returned ids, leaving only minor gaps such as page-boundary behavior for a 3-parameter read 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 description coverage is 67%: 'limit' and 'taskKey' are documented in the schema while 'page' is not. The description's 'paginated' wording hints at the paging model but adds no format or boundary detail beyond what the schema already carries, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('List comments on a task') with the ordering qualifier 'newest first'. It is clear enough to separate from get_task and add_task_comment, though it does not name a sibling explicitly and no sibling tool competes for the same read.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent infers this is the read path before delete_task_comment or add_task_comment. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, but the 'id used by delete_task_comment' note does gesture at the downstream workflow.

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