List comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is disclosed. The description adds the authentication requirement for non-'approve' statuses, which is a useful authorization nuance not covered by annotations. It does not elaborate on pagination or result volume, but given the annotation coverage, the added context is sufficient for a baseline 3.

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 with no filler. The main filtering capability is stated first, then a focused note on moderation usage. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 list operation with 12 optional parameters, the description is adequately complete. It covers the primary use cases (filtering and moderation) and leaves parameter details to the fully documented schema. The absence of an output schema is acceptable for a list tool, and annotations handle the read-only safety profile. Nothing critical is missing for an agent 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 description coverage is 100%, so all 12 parameters are already documented with their own descriptions. The tool description reinforces the filter dimensions (post, status, author, date) but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rubric, high coverage yields a baseline 3, which is appropriate here.

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists comments and supports filtering by post, status, author, and date. It distinguishes itself from single-comment tools like get_comment by using 'list' and plural 'comments'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other list tools like list_content or from moderate_comments, so it is clear but not fully distinguished from all siblings.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use the moderation-related status filters ('hold' and 'spam') and notes that these require authentication. This gives practical guidance on moderator workflows. It does not name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use get_comment for a single comment'), so it falls short of an explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guide, but the context is present.

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