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 bracketed "[read-only]" largely restates that. The description does add genuine behavioral value by stating the items are pending/sent/failed and include "what each waits on", hinting at response content, but it omits any pagination, auth, or ordering behavior.

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?

It is two compact sentences that lead with the resource and scope before the filtering detail and endpoint note. Every clause carries information, with the only minor redundancy being the "[read-only]" tag already covered by annotations.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers the resource, its scoping, filtering, and the semantic content of returned items ("what each waits on"). It stops short of describing pagination or result ordering, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 50%: `status` has only an enum with no description, while `brandId` is documented in the schema. The description compensates for the undocumented parameter by explaining that `status` is a filter and giving concrete example values (needs_approval, failed), adding meaning beyond the bare enum.

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 a specific verb (List), a specific resource (comments-after-publish and reshares of the brand / publish actions), and its scope, plus clarifies it wraps a known endpoint. It clearly conveys what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling list_post_comments.

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 offers implied usage guidance by noting you can filter by `status` (e.g. needs_approval or failed) and that results show pending, sent and failed items. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/ when-not-to-use framing and never names an alternative tool, so the agent must infer positioning relative to siblings like list_post_comments or list_approvals.

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