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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Add' clearly indicates a write, but the description adds nothing beyond that—no mention of idempotency, attribution specifics, or failure modes. It does not contradict annotations, but it doesn't enrich them either, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the optional reply behavior is stated in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has a nested object with six fields and three top-level parameters, plus an output schema (which covers return values). The description is minimal, omitting any guidance on how to obtain page_id or what 'attributed' implies for agent_name, and does not note the presence of idempotency_key. For the complexity present, the description is under-specified, though not dangerously misleading.

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% at the top level, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains parent_entry_id's purpose, which is valuable, but it leaves page_id and idempotency_key unexplained. The nested CommentInput fields are partially self-explanatory, but the description doesn't clarify the 'attributed' aspect or any field usage beyond parent_entry_id—partial compensation only.

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 action ('Add an attributed comment to a page') and immediately clarifies the distinguishing capability ('Optional parent_entry_id replies to a specific comment'). It clearly identifies the resource (page) and the operation, and the reply nuance differentiates it from generic create tools like create_page or publish_entry.

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 conveys a use case ('replies to a specific comment') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., publish_entry, create_page). It offers no exclusions or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the operation name alone.

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