Api comments retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — that unauthorized related fields are masked — signalling partial/redacted results for the caller. It stops short of describing not-found or permission-denied 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?

One short sentence with no filler, so there is no padding to trim. However, its brevity comes at the cost of omitting the resource itself, making it under-specified rather than genuinely efficient.

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?

A single-record retrieve with one undocumented parameter and no output schema needs the description to identify the resource and the identifier. The description covers only the masking behavior, leaving the core contract — what is retrieved, by what key, and what a miss returns — unstated.

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 0% and the single required parameter "id" is undocumented in both schema and description. Given a low-coverage single-parameter schema, the description should state that the id is the comment identifier, but it says nothing about it.

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?

"Return a single object" largely restates the "retrieve" in the name and never says which resource is being fetched — the word "comment" appears only in the tool name, not the description. Against siblings such as comments_object_retrieve, comments_list, and comments_cascade_info_retrieve, the description provides no distinguishing signal.

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, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of the required id or what happens if it is unknown. An agent must infer from the name alone that this fetches one comment by identifier rather than using comments_object_retrieve or comments_list.

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