notion_get_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a non-mutating read, and the description does enumerate the returned fields (text, author, timestamps, thread), but it says nothing about permissions, behavior for deleted/inaccessible comment IDs, or error conditions — gaps that matter for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the parameter note trailing usefully. The stray colon-prefixed 'comment_id:' line is slightly awkward but costs almost nothing.

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 one-parameter read-only getter with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, targeted entity, returned content, and ID provenance. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 0% and the single property is labeled only 'Comment Id', so the note that the ID comes from notion_get_comments or notion_add_comment adds genuine sourcing semantics the schema lacks. It doesn't describe ID format or validation, so not a 5.

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 and resource ('Get a single comment by ID') and enumerates what it returns (text, author, timestamps, thread), which implicitly contrasts with the list-oriented notion_get_comments. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling as the alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is only implied by 'comment_id: from notion_get_comments or notion_add_comment', which tells the agent where to source the ID but not when to prefer this tool over notion_get_comments or the update/delete comment siblings. That is useful but partial routing guidance.

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