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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: newest-first ordering, the exact fields returned, and the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with app access).

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 first two sentences say essentially the same thing ('Comments on one of your shots, with author, text, time and whether you replied' vs. the 'Lists...' sentence), a clear redundancy. The remaining sentences are efficient and the usage info is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields and ordering. Auth requirement is noted. Complete enough for a simple read-only list tool, though the duplicated phrasing dilutes it slightly.

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 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates unanswered_only's effect and mentions comment_id (a param of the sibling reply tool, not this one), adding little semantic depth. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Lists the comments on one of your shots'), adds scope ('your shots'), ordering ('newest first') and return fields (author, text, time, whether you replied). An agent can distinguish this from dribbble_reply_to_comment without opening either schema.

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?

Gives actionable routing ('Set unanswered_only to skip comments you already answered') and a workflow handoff ('Pass comment_id to reply_to_comment'). It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause, but there is no competing list-comments sibling to disambiguate against.

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