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

Adds substance beyond the annotations by explaining what hiding actually does ('only its author still sees it, marked "hidden by the channel"') and implying reversibility via show. This is consistent with destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and it discloses the user-visible side effect that the annotations alone would not convey.

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 the capabilities front-loaded and the constraint second. Dense but free of filler; the only cost is the slightly awkward quoting of 'hidden by the channel' which is justified as user-visible text.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description needs only to cover the action space and permission context, which it does fully. Coverage of all four enum actions and the ownership precondition makes it callable without further inference.

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 100% (action enum, postId sourced from list_posts, commentId from read_comments), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description reinforces the action set and the post scope of comments_off/comments_on but adds no new syntax or format detail. 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?

Names the resource (comments, comments on a post) and enumerates all four supported verbs: hide, show, comments_off, comments_on, matching the action enum exactly. An agent can distinguish this from neighbors like read_comments or delete_post without opening the schema.

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?

States a clear usage condition and permission gate: 'Only when the person asks, on a channel they own or moderate.' That is a real when-to-use and authorization constraint. It does not, however, name a sibling alternative (e.g., deleting a comment instead of hiding it), so it stops short of explicit alternative routing.

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