mdl_comments_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing on top of that — no pagination behavior, no auth requirements, no ordering. The "upstream parameters" phrasing is opaque rather than informative.

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?

It is short, but short by omission rather than by efficiency. The one substantive sentence ("params is a JSON object of upstream parameters") is vague and pushes an undocumented escape hatch instead of specifying real inputs.

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 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, two required params, no output schema and no enum hints, the description supplies nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It is materially underspecified.

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 0% and the description compensates for none of the four parameters. The required ptype (enum-less string, no stated allowed values) and pid (integer-or-slug union) are entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot know what ptype should contain or whether pid is a title ID or a slug.

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?

"Comments: list" essentially restates the tool name (mdl_comments_list) without naming the resource domain it operates on (title? episode? user?) or its scope. It never distinguishes itself from mdl_custom_lists_list_comments, which lists comments in a different context. This is close to tautology.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as mdl_custom_lists_list_comments or mdl_titles_get_comment_count. An agent has nothing to route on beyond the name.

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