List recipe comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, ordering, or content of comments) but does not contradict the annotations. Since annotations carry the burden, a neutral score is appropriate.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words. It is concise and directly serves its purpose without extraneous detail.

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 list tool with one well-documented parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. There is no missing information an agent would need to call it correctly; any return format details are provided by the output schema.

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?

The single parameter 'recipe' is fully documented in the schema with examples and a reference to search_recipes. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description correctly does not duplicate parameter information. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already provides the necessary meaning.

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 ('Lists'), the resource ('comments'), and the target ('on a recipe'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_recipe_comment and delete_recipe_comment. It also adds the nuance 'other users of the instance' which clarifies scope beyond just the name.

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 usage (listing comments for a recipe) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The context of sibling tools makes the intent obvious, but the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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