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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds crucial behavioral warnings: comment bodies are untrusted and should never be embedded into prompts, and include_html returns untrusted HTML. It also notes total_count may be null. This goes well beyond the annotations and addresses a significant security concern.

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?

The description is long but well-organized with Args and Returns sections, and it front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence contributes value—explaining parameters, return format, and security caveats. It is not overly verbose for a tool with 12 parameters, though it could be tightened slightly without losing 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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers use cases, parameter behavior, return format, and security warnings. The agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly without additional inference.

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 explain parameters, and it does thoroughly. It details entity_id, entity_name with aliases, include_html, limit clamped to 100, offset, newest_first, comment_id, text_offset, and text_limit. It also explains the return structure. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, aside from omitting correlation_id which is a minor gap.

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 opens with 'Read the latest comments, exact thread count, older pages, or a full text,' which clearly identifies the tool as a read operation for comments with multiple retrieval modes. It also mentions the specific use case of readback after a comment write, making the purpose distinct from sibling write tools like preview_write_comment.

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 description provides clear context on when to use the tool: for reading comments, including verification after a write. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it earns a 3.

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