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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two operationally important traits: it requires Authorization: Bearer <api_key> and costs 2 credits per page. However it says nothing about return format, ordering, rate limits, or what happens when the cursor is exhausted, leaving sizable gaps for a mutation-free but paid, authenticated call.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded and useful, but the trailing boilerplate is redundant and contains a typo ('page..'), repeating the per-page pricing twice ('Priced per page' and 'Credits unit: page'). Roughly half the text is machine-generated metadata rather than information the agent needs.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns (a page of comments), how it is paged (cursor from previous nextCursor), auth, and cost. It could say more about the returned comment fields or when pagination should stop, but nothing critical 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 coverage is 100%, so both id and cursor are already documented in the schema, and the description only re-states that id targets a video/Short page. No additional syntax, format, or limits are added beyond the schema baseline.

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 (Fetch) and resource (public comments) scoped to a video or Short, and the platform/resource metadata plus the name distinguish it from the instagram_comments/reddit_comments/tiktok_comments siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but an agent can identify the tool without opening either schema.

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?

The description implies the tool applies when you have a video or Short id, but gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no comparison to siblings such as youtube_video or youtube_shorts. Usage must be inferred from the required id parameter alone.

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