List comments

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral/return detail: every reply thread, who resolved or reopened it, and the optional surrounding paragraph, though pagination and result-shape behavior are left to the schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and the specific output contents, with no filler. The second sentence adds useful context about the tool's role on the server rather than repeating schema information.

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 7-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, strong safety annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the missing output-content context. It does not describe pagination or result shape, but page_token and max_results are already schema-described, leaving only a minor 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 baseline is 3 even without parameter info in the description. The description only hints at include_context via 'optionally, the surrounding paragraph,' but the schema already documents that; it adds no extra meaning for the other six parameters.

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 ('List'), resource ('comments of a Google Doc'), and the scope of what is returned: author, dates, status, quoted text, replies, and who resolved/reopened. The 'full detail' framing and 'main tool' context distinguish it from get_comments_summary and get_comment without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

Calling it 'the main tool of this server' faintly implies it is the default for reading comments, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to get_comments_summary or get_comment. This is implied usage rather than clear exclusions or alternatives.

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