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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new fact beyond annotations – the required comments.read scope. It says nothing about result volume, pagination behavior, or that embedded relations return null without extra scopes, which are the behaviors an agent would otherwise hit blind.

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, zero filler, with the capability stated first and the access prerequisite trailing. Nothing is repeated and nothing could be cut without losing 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?

For a 7-parameter search tool with a nested filters object and no output schema, the description covers purpose and auth but leaves the agent without any indication of what comes back or how facets combine (AND vs OR). The dense schema compensates for most of the parameter side, but the absence of return-value framing is a real gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the filter facets (author, date, parent comment, attached entity) at a conceptual level that maps onto the filters keys, but adds no syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already documents.

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 (search) and resource (comments and notes) plus the facets it can be filtered by, which clearly separates it from the generic sellsy_search and the entity-specific search tools. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to route against, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only usage guidance is the prerequisite 'Needs comments.read.', which is helpful but not a when-to-use rule. There is no statement about when to prefer this over sellsy_search or over fetching a company/contact and reading its notes.

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