List Comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral note that every page consumes API quota, but says nothing about pagination termination, continuation tokens, or result shape.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no padding; the quota caveat appears early. The clause 'Reads community data' is slightly filler given the readOnly annotation, keeping it below a 5.

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?

With annotations carrying the safety profile and the schema carrying full parameter documentation, the description supplies the one behavioral fact an agent most needs (quota cost of paging). For an 8-parameter, no-output-schema list tool this is reasonably complete, though bulk-listing intent versus single-comment retrieval remains implicit.

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 all eight parameters are already documented in the schema, including the all_pages/max_items quota semantics. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that baseline, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List Comments'), and distinguishes itself implicitly from the sibling mutation/read tools create_comment, delete_comment and get_comment. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, so it falls 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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The agent must infer that this is the bulk-retrieval counterpart to get_comment and that search/comments-wide retrieval uses search_text, with no explicit statement of that routing.

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