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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantive context: default sort order, pagination behavior, that author emails are suppressed from results, and an explicit prompt-injection warning that returned text is untrusted data. That last point is real behavioral guidance an agent would otherwise not have.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and its default ordering, followed by usage, the write alternative, and the safety caveat. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented schema, the main open question is what a comment record contains; the description covers visibility (internal vs public) and the email-suppression rule but does not enumerate returned fields. Adequate for a paged list endpoint, though a brief note on the record shape would close the remaining 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 id, page, order and page_size are already fully documented with defaults, ranges and enum values. The description only restates the default ordering already covered by the order parameter, adding no new syntax or constraint information. Baseline 3 applies.

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 the internal and public comments on one Ybug feedback item') and scopes it to a single item, with default ordering and pagination noted. It is clearly distinguishable from the write-side sibling add_comment, which it names directly.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('to see earlier triage notes such as duplicate decisions or reproduction steps') and routes the agent elsewhere for the write case ('Use add_comment to write an internal comment'). Both the use case and the alternative are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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