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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: the sort order ('newest first'), the fact that each item is paired with its parent document, and the pagination mechanism. It omits default page size, but the disclosure is solid.

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, zero filler, with the result shape and ordering front-loaded before the pagination note. Every clause carries 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 read-only, non-destructive listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (comments plus their document), in what order, and how to page. Only the parameter defaults and bounds are left unstated.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it only names the two parameters in service of 'Page'. It does not state the limit ceiling (50), the skip bound, or default behavior when either is omitted, leaving the agent to open the schema for anything beyond the names.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List the comments') with an explicit scope qualifier ('the user has written'), which distinguishes it from get_comment and from document-wide listing tools. It does not name a sibling or a boundary case, 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 scoping phrase implies when to use it (the caller's own comments rather than a specific comment or another user's), and 'Page with skip and limit' hints at the browsing pattern. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative such as get_comment for single-comment retrieval.

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