get_card_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a pagination/continuation note, but does not explain how continuation works, rate limits, or how the page fingerprint mechanism behaves beyond what the schema states.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no padding. The pagination sentence is terse and slightly ambiguous but earns its place by flagging the continuation behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so enumerating return fields is largely redundant, and the description does not cover the low-coverage pagination parameters for this 8-param tool. Adequate but leaves gaps for an agent driving pagination.

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 only 38% across 8 parameters, and the description names none of them (limit, offset, card_id, detail, section_offsets, previous_page). It fails to compensate for the coverage gap, leaving several parameters with no explanation in either place.

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+resource ("Read a page of comments") and enumerates the returned content types (original text, format, authors, dates, editing flags, attachment metadata). It does not name or contrast with any sibling, but no sibling returns comments, so ambiguity is low.

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?

"Follow pagination and text continuation" is a usage instruction for iteration, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or routing to alternatives. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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