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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the sort order (oldest first), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about pagination, result caps, or the non-idempotent behavior implied by idempotentHint=false on a list endpoint.

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 tight sentence with the resource and the ordering constraint front-loaded. Nothing is padded or repeated from the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and one fully documented required parameter keeps the call surface trivial. The only real omission is guidance on large comment threads (pagination or truncation), which matters somewhat for a list endpoint marked non-idempotent.

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% for the single card_id parameter ('card UUID'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the identifier beyond what the schema states, which is the expected baseline here.

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 (list) and resource (comments) scoped to a card, plus the ordering (oldest first). It is clearly distinguishable from add_comment/update_comment/delete_comment, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the broader get_card_activity sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and scope — an agent can infer this is the read path for a card's comment thread — but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over get_card_activity or get_card_detail, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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