list_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond this, such as pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not contradict annotations but adds minimal value.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action and resource. It efficiently communicates the purpose without unnecessary detail, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter), high schema coverage, presence of annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. However, it lacks usage guidelines for sibling tools, slightly reducing completeness in the broader context.

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%, with the single parameter 'document_id' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 ('List') and resource ('all comments in a Google Document'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_comment' (which retrieves a specific comment) or 'reply_to_comment' (which interacts with comments), missing explicit sibling distinction for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'get_comment' for retrieving a single comment or 'resolve_comment' for managing comment states, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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