list_document_comments

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by explaining pagination behavior (default 25, need multiple calls for more, response indicates availability). No contradictions, and it supplements the annotations well.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, important note, use cases, args, returns). It is not overly long, though some repetition exists (e.g., 'Retrieves comments' and bullet points).

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?

Given 4 parameters (1 required), no enums, and presence of output schema, the description covers parameter details, output format, and pagination. It does not address error handling or rate limits, but overall sufficient for a read-only tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly lists and describes all four parameters (document_id, include_anchor_text, limit, offset) with defaults, adding meaning beyond the schema. Lacks constraints or examples.

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 clearly states the verb 'Retrieves' and resource 'comments on a specific document', and highlights pagination support. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_comment' (single comment) and 'add_comment' (write).

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 lists specific use cases (review feedback, see all comments, etc.) and provides an important pagination note. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., for a single comment, use get_comment).

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