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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, and the description reinforces that while adding real value the schema does not carry: oldest-first ordering, replies nested inline, the reactions array shape and the meaning of 'mine' tied back to stride.toggle_reaction. It stops short of describing pagination or truncation behavior for large threads.

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 core operation front-loaded and the return-shape detail following. Every clause ('sorted oldest-first', 'replies nested inline', 'mine marks a reaction this agent left') adds information an agent would otherwise have to discover empirically.

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 list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description adequately explains the returned structure and ordering. The remaining gap is pagination: nothing says what happens when a thread exceeds 'limit', which matters given the 200 cap.

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 coverage is only 33% (just entityId documented), so the description must compensate — but it merely restates the entityType enum values already present in the schema and never mentions 'limit' (default 50, max 200) or any paging semantics. The one undocumented behavioral parameter is entirely absent from the prose.

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 comments') plus the full set of entity types it applies to, so it is immediately distinguishable from create_comment, update_comment and delete_comment siblings. An agent can tell what it retrieves without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'List comments on a story, artifact, diagram, process or defect' tells the agent the resource but not when to prefer this over a sibling such as stride.list_story_activity, which could plausibly also surface comments. No when-not or alternative-routing guidance is given.

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