Get a specific comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that stargazers can optionally be included, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not elaborate on response details or permission requirements.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action and the optional inclusion behavior efficiently.

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 low-complexity read tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It does not surface the team-context requirement or route to alternatives, but those gaps are partly mitigated by the schema and sibling tools.

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 commentId, include, and teamName are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the comment ID and stargazers option but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the structured parameters.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: retrieve a comment by comment ID. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling list tools like esa_get_post_comments or esa_get_team_comments.

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?

The description implies use when a comment ID is known, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives to related comment-retrieval tools. It does not tell an agent when to choose this over esa_get_post_comments or esa_get_team_comments.

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