YouTube comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that the data is structured; it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error cases, or whether all comments are returned. This is insufficient for a data retrieval tool.

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 six words long with zero fluff, and it is front-loaded with the key concept ('structured YouTube comment data'). However, it is so terse that it sacrifices explanatory power, so it does not earn a 5.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is too minimal. It does not describe the return format, whether comments are paginated, or any limitations. An agent would lack critical context for interpreting results or handling edge cases.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single parameter (url: YouTube video URL) with 100% schema description coverage. The description's mention of 'for a video' is consistent with the schema but adds no additional meaning beyond what is already present in the schema definition.

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 identifies the tool as returning structured YouTube comment data for a video, distinguishing it from sibling tools like web_data_youtube_profiles and web_data_youtube_posts. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'fetches', relying instead on a noun phrase.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what the data is, without explaining the context or exclusions. No alternative tools are mentioned.

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