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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is lighter. It adds the detail about accepting external_id or hashid, but does not disclose error behavior, auth requirements, or other traits. Adequate but not enriched.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that conveys the action, object, and identifier options without redundancy. No filler or wasted words.

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 simple read tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it retrieves and how to identify the comment. It could optionally mention return format, but the annotations (readOnlyHint) imply it returns data. Slightly above adequate.

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 100% (both parameters documented). The description repeats the schema's note about comment_id being a hashid or external_id, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states 'Get a single profile comment', specifying it can be a review or reply. It distinguishes from siblings like 'comments_get' by scoping to profile comments. The mention of identifier types further clarifies the tool's purpose.

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?

The description implies when to use (when you need a single profile comment by its hashid or external_id), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No comparison to sibling tools like 'profile_comments_list' or 'comments_get' is provided.

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