List comments on an artwork

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the output contains third-party untrusted text and should be treated as data, not instructions. This is a genuinely useful behavioral disclosure for prompt-injection safety.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the required parameter and the safety caveat. No waste.

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 simple single-param read tool, everything needed is present: what it returns, the required input's provenance, and the untrusted-data handling. No output schema exists, so return-shape detail is modest but the author+text summary suffices.

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 coverage is 100% and the single artwork_id parameter is documented in the schema with its source tool. The description reinforces provenance ('from a portfolio') but adds little beyond the schema. 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?

Specific verb (List) and resource (comments on artwork) with the return content (author + text) named. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling artsonia_post_comment, which writes rather than lists.

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 states the prerequisite of passing an artwork_id from a portfolio, giving clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention the post_comment sibling, but the read/list intent is clear enough.

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