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

Annotations cover the read-only/open-world safety profile, and the description adds real context beyond them: page size of 50, presence of like and reply counts, top-level-only scope, cursor-based paging, and a 1-credit cost. That is a meaningful, non-redundant behavioral disclosure.

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?

Four short sentences with the core scope front-loaded and no filler. Slight compression opportunity since cursor paging is restated from the schema, but nothing is wasteful.

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, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so (top-level comments with like and reply counts, 50 per page). The main gap is where replies to comments can be fetched, which is left unstated.

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 67% and the schema already documents url formats and the cursor source. The description reinforces cursor paging, which is helpful, but adds nothing about url or the undocumented cache_max_age parameter, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('video comments' on an Odysee video) and narrows scope to top-level comments. It is distinguishable from odysee_video and odysee_search, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it needs comments on a specific video. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance, and with ~150 sibling tools including peertube_comments, youtube_videoComments, and rumble_comments, a routing sentence would have been valuable.

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