List comments on a card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, and idempotentHint: true. The description adds that results are ordered oldest first and supports two response formats, which is useful context. No contradictions; however, it does not disclose potential pagination or limits, but given the annotations, the bar is lower.

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 concise: a single-sentence purpose, a clear parameter list, and an example. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and contains no extraneous 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?

The description sufficiently covers purpose, parameters, and return order. There is no output schema, but the description gives enough context for an agent to understand what the tool does. It could mention whether pagination exists or the structure of comment objects, but overall it is adequate.

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 50% (only response_format has a schema description). The tool description compensates by describing the id parameter as 'card ObjectId' and re-explaining response_format with an example, adding meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'List all comments on a card, oldest first.' It uses a specific verb ('list'), resource ('comments on a card'), and ordering ('oldest first'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like kanbanzone_create_comment.

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 provides an example query ('What have people said on card 670...?') that implies usage context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to use list_comments vs create_comment), nor does it mention any prerequisites or when not to use it.

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