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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's real value is the added detail that credentialed calls tag the caller's own comments with `mine: true` and that this flag drives deletability. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the structured fields; pagination/return shape is still unstated.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, behavioral detail second, no filler. Appropriately sized for a trivial list tool.

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 one-parameter read-only list operation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema required, the description supplies purpose plus the `mine` flag semantics. Only pagination/ordering behavior is absent, which is a minor gap here.

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?

The single `id` parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage, including 'ID do canal no catálogo'), and the description adds nothing about it. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the semantics.

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 names the resource and its scope — community comments attached to a specific channel — which separates it from post_comment and delete_comment. It omits an explicit verb like 'list' (that lives only in the name/title), so it is clear but not maximally self-contained.

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?

It never states when to choose this over siblings such as get_channel or delete_comment, nor any preconditions. The only contextual note ('com credencial na chamada') describes authentication behavior, not when-to-use guidance.

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