Get team comments

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 covered structurally. The description adds only that pagination is supported, which is a modest behavioral detail and is also implied by the page/perPage parameters.

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 or redundancy. Nothing could be removed 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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is barely adequate. It omits ordering, default page/perPage behavior, and how team-level results relate to post-level comment tools, all of which an agent would need to call it confidently.

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% and the schema documents page numbering (starts from 1), perPage, and the teamName prerequisite, so the baseline is 3. The description's "pagination support" merely echoes the schema rather than adding format or defaulting nuance.

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") and scopes it to a team, which implicitly separates it from the sibling esa_get_post_comments. It does not name that sibling or otherwise tell the agent how team-scoped comments differ from post-scoped ones, so it falls short of full 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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance appears in the description. The only routing hint ("Use esa_get_teams first") lives in the teamName schema field, not the description, and nothing explains why an agent would pick this over esa_get_post_comments or esa_get_comment.

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