List ticket comments

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: deterministic ordering (oldest first, as the API returns them) and conditional visibility of unapproved comments depending on API key presence.

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 compact sentences with zero waste; the ordering guarantee is front-loaded and the API-key visibility note follows. Nothing repeats the name or schema.

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 tool with no output schema, the ordering and visibility behavior are covered well. Pagination or result-size limits are not addressed, which is the main remaining gap an agent might care about when consuming a list response.

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 both token and ticketId are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no additional semantics for either parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 and resource ('List the comments of a ticket') and is clearly distinct from siblings like list_tickets, list_ticket_attachments, and update_comment. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary from the resource noun alone.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the note that an API key causes unapproved comments to be included is a useful prerequisite hint, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as get_ticket for ticket-level data.

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