list_doc_comments

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: resolved threads are hidden by default, orphaned comments remain visible but point nowhere (orphaned=true), and an ambiguous slug yields a 409. Much of the path/moved_to/409 detail, however, is restated from the doc parameter's own schema description, so net-new disclosure is moderate.

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?

The opening sentence is well front-loaded and dense with value, but the closing sentence on doc paths, moved_to and 409 is essentially a restatement of the doc parameter description, which inflates the definition without new information. Roughly half the text is redundant with structured data.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-shape burden — and it does: thread nesting, replies under top-level comments, quoted anchor, author, the orphaned flag, and the moved_to field on replies. Combined with the annotations covering the safety profile and full schema coverage of parameters, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema at length. The description's discussion of old paths, bare slugs, moved_to and the 409 duplicates that text rather than adding syntax or defaults the schema lacks. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource: 'Read the comments on a document as threads', and it goes further by describing the returned structure (nested replies, anchor, author). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling list_comments (which presumably lists comments across documents) or from comment_doc, so an agent must infer the boundary. Clear purpose, but no sibling differentiation.

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 is implied by 'on a document' and the explanation of include_resolved, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance and no naming of an alternative tool. The agent can infer it is the per-document reader, but the description never confirms that against list_comments.

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