List Tracker entity comments (relative)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that — the tool auto-drains cursor pages up to a cap rather than returning one page — which tells the agent to expect multiple underlying requests and a potentially large result.

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, no filler, and the differentiator (prefer this for long threads) is placed immediately after the one-line purpose. Every clause carries information.

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 read-only list endpoint with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is nearly sufficient; the paging behavior is disclosed. It does not say how results are ordered or whether a cursor is echoed back, which matters for a 'drains pages' tool with no output schema, but that is a minor gap.

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%, with each parameter (limit, entity_id, entity_type) documented inline, including enum-like values for entity_type. The description adds only that an omitted `limit` falls back to 'the configured item cap', which the schema already states; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (an entity's comments) and the specific access path (the cursor-paginated `…/comments/_relative` endpoint), which is enough to separate it from siblings. It stops short of an explicit verb+scope statement like 'list all comments for one entity', but the endpoint does convey the operation.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative (`entities_comments_list`) and states the condition that should select this one: long comment threads, because it drains pages up to `limit`. There is no guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g. short threads), but the routing advice is concrete and actionable.

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