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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so 'Read-only' in the description is redundant. The one genuinely new behavioral fact is the 'oldest first' ordering, which matters for reading a thread; nothing is said about truncation, whether replies are nested, or what happens when the thread exceeds the limit.

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 sentences plus a trailing 'Read-only', front-loaded with verb and resource and free of filler. The final fragment duplicates the annotation rather than earning its place, a minor waste.

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 tells the agent the ordering and what the content represents, and the fully documented schema covers inputs. An agent could reasonably want to know the return shape (authors, timestamps, replies) or pagination behavior, but for a simple read tool this is close to 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 100% and the schema already documents the identifier format, the default/max limit, and the required context-parameter wording. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Read the comment thread on a Linear issue') plus an ordering guarantee ('oldest first'). It functionally distinguishes itself from linear_get_issue by pointing at 'discussion and decisions that are not in the issue description', though it does not name sibling 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?

'Use this for the discussion and decisions that are not in the issue description' gives a clear selection condition against the issue-body tool. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer linear_search_issues or linear_add_comment for writing), so it is context without routing.

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