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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is low. The description adds two things annotations cannot: that results are truncated previews (not full text) and that reviewer text is untrusted data — a valuable prompt-injection warning for an agent consuming user-generated content.

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 terse sentences, zero filler, with the capability statement front-loaded and the safety caveat second. Every clause carries information.

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 and no annotation detail on results, the description usefully covers truncation and data trust, but omits pagination behavior (offset/limit interplay, max 20 per page) and what fields a comment preview actually returns. Adequate but with clear gaps for a list 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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: document_id's format constraint, limit's default of 10 and max of 20, and offset's pagination role are never mentioned. Only the 180-character output bound is hinted at, which is about results, not inputs.

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 ('List ... comment previews') and adds the important qualifier 'bounded 180-character' that separates it from shareout_read_comment's full text. It never names the sibling explicitly, so the distinction must be inferred from the word 'previews'.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 180-character preview framing suggests using this for scanning and shareout_read_comment for full text, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction. No pagination or prerequisite guidance is offered either.

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