Get comments for a specific post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added claim, 'with pagination support,' merely restates the page/perPage parameters already visible in the schema, so it contributes essentially nothing behavioral beyond structured data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, resource, and scoping qualifier come first and nothing is wasted.

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?

Adequate for a read-only list tool whose annotations cover safety, but it does not resolve the schema's internal ambiguity where teamName is described as 'required' yet absent from the required array, nor does it mention ordering or comment shape. An agent calling it correctly has to work around that gap unaided.

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 four parameters (page, perPage, teamName, postNumber) are already documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format, default, or ordering detail beyond that.

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 and resource ('Retrieves a list of comments') plus the scope ('for a specific post'), which implicitly separates it from esa_get_team_comments and the singular esa_get_comment. However, it never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation relies on the agent inferring from scope wording.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is mentioned, despite close siblings (esa_get_comment, esa_get_team_comments) that an agent could easily confuse with this one. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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