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 genuinely non-obvious behavioral detail: that replies are inlined, that each reply carries a `replyTo` pointer to the comment it answers, and that `total` counts all entries including replies. It does not cover ordering or whether unpublished posts are excluded.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the core content (what comes back) is front-loaded. The parenthetical and the trailing `total` note are terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does: author, text, inlined replies with `replyTo`, plus a `total` count. Ordering, pagination behavior, and whether deleted or hidden comments appear are unaddressed, which is the remaining gap for a read tool.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the `postId` scope ('a published post') but says nothing about the `accountId` restriction or how the two filters interact — that meaning comes entirely from the schema.

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 states clearly what is returned: comments on a published post, with author and text, including replies. The 'published post' scoping and the reply/`replyTo` structure distinguish it reasonably from generic listing tools. It stops short of explicitly naming `list_comments` or `get_post` as the alternatives, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of when not to use it. The sibling `list_comments` is an obvious alternative and is never referenced in the description; the only routing hint (that postId comes from `list_comments`) lives in the schema, not the description.

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