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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: cursor-based pagination and the fact that threaded replies are returned alongside root comments, which affects how results should be parsed.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the threading nuance. Nothing is wasted or misplaced.

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 should carry more of the return-shape burden; it explains threading but not the pagination envelope, next-cursor semantics, or the default/maximum limit. Workspace and brand scoping for this read operation are also left unaddressed, leaving it only minimally complete for a 6-param tool.

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 coverage is only 33% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It alludes to the cursor param via 'cursor pagination' but says nothing about limit (default 50, max 100), brand_id, workspace_id, or the sparse query override object, leaving most params undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List comments on a post') plus differentiating behavior (cursor pagination, threaded replies returned with root comments). It clearly separates itself from the create/update/delete comment siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with aidelly_get_post or other list tools.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g. requiring a valid post id). The pagination note describes mechanics, not selection criteria, so an agent must infer usage from the name and siblings alone.

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