get_ticket_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond those: chronological ordering (oldest first), output format (plain text with author names), and content scope (public replies + internal notes). Minor tension: 'every' overpromises against the max_comments cap and openWorldHint, but this is a schema-level nit, not an annotation contradiction.

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 tight sentence with zero filler. The core verb+object is front-loaded, and the trailing clause packs content scope, ordering, and format into a short list. Every element earns its place.

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 low-complexity read tool with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke and interpret results. Since there is no output schema, the description's 'plain text with author names' serves as the return-value disclosure. It does not describe truncation behavior, but that is largely covered by the max_comments parameter definition.

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 100%, so all three parameters (id, max_comments, include_internal) are already documented in the schema with defaults and semantics. The description's mention of 'public reply and internal note' loosely mirrors the include_internal parameter but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('the conversation on a ticket'), and exactly what it returns: public replies, internal notes, oldest first, plain text with author names. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_ticket, which returns ticket fields rather than the comment thread.

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?

The description gives clear context, explicitly defining the tool's scope as the conversation thread on a ticket rather than the ticket record itself, so an agent can infer when to call it. It does not, however, explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use it, which would be needed for a 5.

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