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

Goes well beyond the read-only annotations: discloses the surprising default ordering (end of thread), how pagination via 'earlier' works, that deleted comments are excluded, that bodies are returned verbatim, and the minimum permission needed. These are exactly the traits an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the ordering caveat, then cross-tool linkages. Dense but mostly earns its space; the clause about update_comment's 'edits' is a little awkwardly phrased but still carries useful 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the relevant returned fields ('body', 'replyTo', 'earlier') and the exclusion of deleted comments. Combined with permissions and pagination behavior, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds interpretive value by explaining 'earlier' (an output field absent from the schema) and framing startAt/limit as page-walking rather than raw offsets, though it largely restates the schema's description of 'startAt'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the discussion on an issue') and immediately pins down ordering and scope. The relationship to sibling tools update_comment and add_comment is named, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening other schemas.

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?

Explains the key decision — omitting 'startAt' retrieves the most recent page, passing it walks backward — and explicitly ties the returned ids to add_comment's 'replyTo' and update_comment's 'edits'. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as get_linked_jira_comments, which keeps it 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.