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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses the 1-credit cost, that empty results and failures are not charged, and that cache=true provides a free 24-hour cache hit while the default is a fresh fetch. This goes well beyond basic operation, though it does not cover authentication, rate limits, or response error behavior.

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 description is extremely compact and front-loads the core purpose in the first clause. Every sentence adds distinct information: scope, output fields, cost, billing behavior, and cache behavior. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the main calling concerns: what is returned, cost, failure charging, and caching. However, there is no output schema, and the phrase 'list schema + commentCount trio + isEdited' is cryptic and does not clearly describe the response structure, leaving an agent uncertain about the exact return shape.

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 schema already documents both url and cache parameters thoroughly. The description mostly restates the cache behavior already present in the schema ('free 24h cache hit' vs. '0 credits on hit'), adding little new semantic value for 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?

The description opens with 'One community post', which clearly identifies the tool as retrieving details for a single YouTube post rather than a list, and it names specific output fields (list schema, commentCount trio, isEdited). It distinguishes itself from the plural sibling youtube_community_posts, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'retrieve' and uses some jargon such as 'commentCount trio'.

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 singular framing 'One community post' implies this tool is for individual post details, which contrasts with the sibling youtube_community_posts. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, and it does not reference any sibling by name.

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