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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's burden is reduced. It adds the endpoint and the fact that both public and private comment kinds are returned, but says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering defaults, or permissions needed to see private notes.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the concrete endpoint. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

For a read-only paginated list tool with a well-described 6-parameter schema and no output schema, this is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is the missing default ordering for sort_order and any hint about what a comment object contains.

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 83%, so the schema already explains cursor, page_size, ticket_id, and both conversation filters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and the one undocumented parameter (sort_order) is left without a default or ordering semantics in either place.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("List the comments ... on a ticket") and clarifies the resource subtypes (public replies, private notes), which lets an agent separate it from gorelo_add_ticket_comment and gorelo_get_ticket. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gorelo_get_ticket (which may already include comments) or the list_* siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The API endpoint line is implementation detail, not usage guidance.

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