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, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only additional disclosure is the shape of the return content (author + text), which is useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or empty-result behavior.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is stated first with the parameter note following. Nothing here could be cut without losing 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 single-parameter annotated read tool this is nearly sufficient; it identifies the resource and the returned fields. The only minor gap is the absence of any mention of result volume, ordering, or how feedback-related siblings differ.

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 schema already documents artwork_id with its pattern and source (artsonia_get_portfolio). The description restates the same idea at a slightly higher level, so it adds little beyond the schema — the baseline 3 for fully-documented single-param tools.

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 (list) and resource (comments on an artwork) and even previews the returned fields (author + text). It does not explicitly name a sibling such as artsonia_get_feedback or artsonia_post_comment, so an agent must infer the split from the names 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?

"Pass an artwork_id from a portfolio" gives a mild prerequisite for the parameter, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to similar tools like artsonia_get_feedback or artsonia_get_activity.

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