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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the raw REST endpoint (GET /rest/comments/{referenceType}/{referenceValue}), which signals a thin API passthrough, but says nothing about pagination, permissions, or whether an empty list vs. an error is returned for an unknown reference.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, no filler. The endpoint sentence is marginally redundant with the tool name but does add the concrete path mapping for API-aware agents.

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?

A simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, so the burden is light. Still, the description omits the response shape (a list of comment objects) and any pagination or ordering behavior, which an agent needs to plan a call against a potentially long note history.

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 50%: reference_id is documented in the schema, while reference_type has only an enum with no description. The description partially compensates by spelling out what each reference type means and by showing the {referenceType}/{referenceValue} path mapping, so the enum values are semantically grounded, but no constraints or defaults are added.

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 specific resource (internal notes/comments) and enumerates the four reference scopes (order, order item, contact, category), which is more precise than the tool name alone. The verb is only implied by the 'list_comments' name and the GET endpoint, but an agent can still tell this apart from plentymarkets_add_comment.

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?

The reference-type enumeration implies when the tool applies (fetching notes attached to an order, item, contact or category), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to siblings such as plentymarkets_get_order (which may also surface notes) or plentymarkets_add_comment for the write side.

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