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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, it discloses two behaviors not in structured fields: author email addresses are never returned, and returned text is untrusted data that must not be followed as instructions (prompt-injection guard). Ordering and pagination defaults are largely duplicated from the schema, so this is strong but not five-level.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and the subsequent sentences (privacy note, sibling routing, injection warning) each carry information. Minor redundancy: the 'oldest first by default' clause repeats the schema's order parameter description.

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 listing tool with a simple flat 4-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, pagination, data-visibility limits, and a safety caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 all four parameters (id, page, order, page_size) are already documented, including defaults and enum values. The description only restates 'oldest first by default' and 'with pagination' without adding syntax or format meaning, so 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?

The first sentence gives a precise verb+resource with scope: list internal and public comments on ONE feedback item, with default ordering and pagination. It is immediately distinguishable from list_feedback (lists items) and add_comment (writes comments).

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?

States the concrete use case ('see earlier triage notes such as duplicate decisions or reproduction steps') and explicitly routes the write path to a named alternative: 'Use add_comment to write an internal comment.' The condition that selects each tool is clear.

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