share_get_comment_report_reasons

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds that results come as code-plus-label pairs, which is mildly useful, but says nothing about caching, localization, or ordering. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, this is adequate rather than rich.

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 short sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. Every word earns its place; there is no padding or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter reference lookup with an output schema and read-only annotations already in place, this is nearly complete. The only gap is not tying the result to the downstream share_report_comment call that consumes these codes.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The sentence correctly signals that the tool takes no input and only returns reference data.

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: retrieve comment report reason codes and their display text. It is distinguishable from the sibling share_get_material_report_reasons by subject matter (comments vs. materials). It does not name that sibling explicitly, but the resource scope is clear.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a lookup table to consult before calling share_report_comment, but the description never says when to use it or points at the report tool. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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