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

Beyond the readOnly annotation, the description discloses substantial behavior: the JSON structure, images following the JSON labelled with comment_id, open-only default, Pro requirement, and a security warning to treat comment text/HTML as requests rather than 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?

The description is dense but front-loaded with the core resource and return shape. Every sentence carries relevant information, though the long single paragraph could be structured more cleanly for scanning.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a good job explaining the comment fields, attached images, and filtering behavior. It leaves minor operational details such as pagination or limits on the number of comments unstated.

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?

It adds useful semantics for include_resolved (open comments only unless true) and include_pictures (images follow the JSON, labelled with comment_id). The schema still carries the page_id sourcing detail and the 8-picture limit, so it does not fully replace parameter documentation.

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 identifies the resource and scope: comments on a page's live session (Pro). It is specific enough to distinguish listing comments from resolving them, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools such as resolve_comment.

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 implies usage by describing the returned comments and the include_resolved behavior, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to alternatives like get_page_stats or resolve_comment.

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