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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the body can be up to 10,000 characters and is boundary-marked untrusted data that must never be treated as instructions.

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 compact sentences front-load the core action and the key reason to use it. The arguments and untrusted-data warning are included without wasted text.

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 getter with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description provides enough context: scope, size limit, argument source, and untrusted-data handling. The main remaining gap is fuller explanation of the ID parameters.

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 parameter meaning. It names all three arguments and clarifies that commentId comes from get_error_group, but it does not explain projectId or groupId semantics or formats beyond their names.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: fetching one internal team comment or status note on an error group. It explicitly distinguishes the tool from get_error_group by explaining that it reads the full body beyond the 1,000-character cutoff.

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 says when to use this tool: to read what get_error_group truncated, and notes that commentId comes from get_error_group. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name update/delete comment siblings as alternatives, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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