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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: return ordering (oldest first), the nesting behavior of replies, and the auth prerequisite (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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and well organized. Minor redundancy: "with author and date" appears in both the first and second sentences, wasting a clause.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return contents, ordering, reply nesting, and the auth requirement. Nothing critical an agent needs to call it 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 100%, so the single step_id parameter is fully documented in the schema ("Step ID from list_steps"). The description implies step scoping but adds no syntax beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 step) plus scope details: oldest-first ordering, author and date, and nested replies. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling reply_to_step_comment without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the alternative ("Use comment_id with reply_to_step_comment") for the write case, which is clear context. It lacks an explicit when-not condition, but the read/list purpose is unambiguous.

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