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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the burden is light. The description still adds non-obvious behavior: only published posts are included, posts without comments are excluded, and results are ordered newest first. Pagination and limit behavior are not disclosed.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the scoping/sorting constraint is front-loaded before the workflow hint. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filter scope, ordering, and workflow role. Minor gaps remain around result shape (e.g. whether comment counts are returned) and pagination, but nothing critical 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 description coverage is 75% (limit is undocumented in the schema), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all — it never mentions limit, platform, accountId, or workspaceId. With three of four parameters already documented in the schema, this sits at the baseline rather than compensating for the 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 gives a specific resource and scope — published posts that have comments, sorted newest first — and usefully clarifies that despite the name list_comments, this returns posts, not comment records. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like list_posts or get_comment_thread, 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?

'Starting point for community management: pick a post, read its thread, reply' clearly positions this as the entry point of a workflow, implying get_comment_thread and reply_to_comment come next. It gives context but names no alternative tools explicitly and states no when-not-to-use condition.

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