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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context — that the notes are internal and never visible to customers — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or permission requirements for reading team-internal content.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed immediately by the visibility caveat. Nothing is redundant and nothing is buried.

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 two-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers what the tool returns conceptually but not its shape — no word on whether results are a list, their ordering, or whether pagination exists. Adequate to invoke, thin for interpreting results.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it partially does by tying the call to 'a comment or conversation', which maps to the item_type enum. However, it never explains that item_id is the UUID of that comment/conversation nor how the two parameters interact, leaving the schema's untyped fields to speak for themselves.

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 ('Read the team's internal notes') and narrows scope to 'on a comment or conversation', which tells an agent this is a child listing scoped to a parent item. It distinguishes the resource from sibling list_comments/list_conversations, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 only implied: the mention of a comment or conversation signals a parent-scoped lookup, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or exclusion versus list_comments, get_messages, or list_conversations. The line 'Customers never see these' hints at internal-only visibility but gives no invocation guidance.

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