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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature, so the description adds value by disclosing cursor pagination and the threaded return of replies alongside root comments—details not available from the schema or annotations.

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, information-dense sentence that leads with the core action and adds two key behavioral details (pagination and threading). There is no filler or redundancy.

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 covers the essential behavior, and the schema provides details for limit and workspace_id. However, there is no output schema, and the 'query' override parameter is ambiguous. The description does not fully explain the response structure or advanced filtering, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 only 33% (query and workspace_id have descriptions), so the tool description should compensate. It references cursor pagination but does not explain the format or expected values for 'id', 'limit', 'cursor', 'query', or 'brand_id'. The parameter names are partially self-explanatory, but 'query' remains vague.

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 states the action ('List'), the resource ('comments on a post'), and a distinctive behavior ('cursor pagination' and 'Comments are threaded'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like aidelly_create_post_comment or aidelly_delete_post_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?

The context is clear: use this to retrieve comments for a specific post. The presence of a required 'id' and the resource name make the use case unambiguous, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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