get_issue_comment

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description's main added value is noting the accepted id forms ('numeric id or longId'). It doesn't disclose return shape or what happens if the id doesn't exist, but with annotations covering safety a 3 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?

A single economical sentence with the resource and key front-loaded. No waste, though it is almost too terse to be highly informative.

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 single-entity getter with full annotation and schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. The lack of any disambiguation from the plural sibling is the only real gap.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the id formats and the expand options. The description's '(numeric id or longId)' simply restates the schema's commentId note.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get one comment of an issue') and its lookup key. The singular 'one comment' implicitly contrasts with the plural sibling get_issue_comments, but it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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 on when to use this vs get_issue_comments or get_entity_comment, and no prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from the fact that it returns a single comment by id.

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