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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about what is read (revision-anchored metadata, authorship, resolution) and the semantics of the 'status=open' filter. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and includes a practical tip. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description adequately covers purpose and provides a key usage scenario. It could mention more about what the response contains, but since no output schema exists, the description's current level is sufficient.

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 25% (only handoverId has a description). The description compensates by explaining the use of 'status=open' and mentioning 'revision-anchored' which clarifies the revisionId parameter. 'File comments' and 'selected text' hint at the artifactId's role, adding meaningful parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and clearly defines the resource: 'revision-anchored file comments, selected text, status, authorship, and resolution metadata.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like handover.read_artifact (likely reads artifact content) and handover.thread (likely reads thread context).

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 a concrete usage example: 'Use status=open to find feedback that still needs action.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, stopping short of a 5.

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