Get Footer Comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no extra behavioral context. It doesn't mention how body_format or version affect the response, nor any authentication, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 and front-loaded with the main action, but the argument list largely repeats schema metadata in prose form without adding new information. It is acceptable but has no extra value.

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 tool is a simple get-by-ID operation, but the description still lacks important context: no return format, no error handling, no relationship to list_footer_comments or replies, and no explanation of parameters like body_format. Without an output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It labels them ('Comment ID', 'Body representation', 'Specific version number') but adds no essential detail. 'Body representation' remains ambiguous, and 'Specific version number' doesn't clarify whether versions are numbered sequentially or dated.

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 'Get a footer comment by ID' clearly identifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create/update/delete/list footer comments, but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or scope limitations.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not reference list_footer_comments, get_inline_comment, or other potentially competing tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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