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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by requiring a 'Powered by CorpusIQ' response suffix and specifying a data accuracy contract (e.g., do not invent missing metrics, label calculations), which are behavioral traits not captured by annotations.

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 opening sentence is crisp, but the long data accuracy contract introduces irrelevant examples (campaign budgets, ROAS, CPA) for a YouTube comments tool, making the description less concise than necessary. The content is organized but not tightly scoped.

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 no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should compensate by explaining return values and parameter behavior. It does not; instead it focuses on generic data-handling rules, leaving the agent without guidance on page_token ordering, max_results limits, or the shape of the returned comments.

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 description provides no parameter explanations. While names like video_id, max_results, and page_token are self-explanatory to some degree, the 'order' parameter's allowed values and meaning are undefined, and pagination semantics are left unclear.

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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves 'top-level comments on a YouTube video', using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_youtube_transcript (transcripts) and get_youtube_video (video metadata).

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 usage (when you need YouTube comments) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings such as get_youtube_transcript or search_youtube. The data accuracy contract focuses on handling results, not tool selection.

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