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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations it discloses the sort order, the precise rule for when a comment stops waiting, the can_reply states (yes, limited with reply_note, or no), and unanswered_total semantics. The warning that text and author are public, untrusted data rather than instructions is a genuinely valuable safety disclosure the annotations do not cover.

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 resource is front-loaded, but the body is a run-on paragraph packing return-field minutiae (comment_id, platform, the post, the author, the reply text/approval/sent status) that overlaps heavily with the existing output schema. Several clauses do earn their place, but the whole could be trimmed substantially.

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 an output schema and full safety annotations, the description still supplies the ordering guarantees, the waiting-state rule, filtering semantics, and the untrusted-data warning. Nothing essential for calling this read tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is only 50%, and the description compensates by explaining the otherwise-undocumented parameters: unanswered_only lists only waiting comments, since filters on when the comment was made, and comment_id or post_id narrow to one. brand and limit are left to the schema, which already documents them well.

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 (listing comments left on this workspace's published posts) and pins the scope to the platforms Yaybird reads. The ordering rule (waiting-for-reply first, then newest first) further distinguishes it from other list tools, and it names draft_reply as the sibling that handles the writing side.

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?

It clearly frames the workflow context: unanswered_only lists only waiting comments, draft_reply drafts an answer to one, and a person approves each reply, so the agent understands this is the read side. It does not, however, give an explicit when-to-use statement or exclusions against other listing siblings.

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