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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that natural workspace names and document titles are accepted and internal routing identifiers are optional. This helps an agent understand how the tool resolves identifiers.

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 a single, tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key routing detail about natural names and optional IDs. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of 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?

For a read-only list tool with an output schema and informative annotations, the description covers the core calling pattern well: list review threads for a document, using natural names when available. The main gaps are the undocumented status and targetId parameters and the lack of explicit sibling differentiation, but neither prevents correct invocation in the primary natural-language use case.

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?

The description clarifies the natural-name versus internal-ID strategy, which maps directly to articleTitle, workspaceName, articleId, and workspaceId. However, status and targetId have no schema descriptions and are not mentioned in the free-text description, leaving two parameters semantically unexplained despite 67% schema coverage.

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: 'List review comments, highlights, and suggestions for a document.' This clearly separates it from siblings like list_articles and list_workspaces, and the word 'List' distinguishes it from mutation siblings like add_comment, reply_to_thread, and resolve_thread.

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 the tool: when the user wants to see review feedback on a document. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over alternatives such as add_comment, reply_to_thread, or resolve_thread, nor does it provide any exclusion guidance. The natural-name routing note is helpful, but it is more invocation guidance than tool-selection guidance.

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