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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals ordering (oldest first), the exact fields returned (id, content, parent_comment_id, author, likes_count, timestamps), and a specific error condition (404 if post not in community). While it doesn't state read-only behavior explicitly, the 'List' verb implies a non-mutating operation.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main action, then efficiently packs ordering, return fields, and error behavior. Every clause adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 description is sufficient for a list tool: it covers return fields (important since no output schema exists), ordering, and a likely failure case. Minor gaps include no explicit mention of pagination semantics (though covered in the schema) and no note about community scope beyond the 404 clause.

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?

Parameter descriptions in the schema already provide full coverage (post_id is a UUID from list_posts, limit has a default and max, offset is rows to skip). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 comments on a feed post', with clear ordering ('oldest first'). It distinguishes itself from related tools like hivelearn_create_post_comment, hivelearn_get_post, and hivelearn_list_posts by focusing on the comment listing operation.

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 use case is implied – when you need comments for a feed post, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to choose hivelearn_list_discussion_replies for discussion contexts versus feed posts), so the guidance is left to inference.

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