list_post_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pagination scraping is supported' which adds some context about handling multiple pages of data, but fails to describe other important behaviors like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the response format looks like (especially critical since there's no output schema).

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 appropriately concise with just two sentences that each serve a purpose - one states the core functionality, the other adds important behavioral context about pagination. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words on redundant information.

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?

Given the complexity of a comment listing tool with pagination support, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It should explain the response format, error handling, rate limits, and how pagination works in practice. The mention of pagination is helpful but doesn't provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 all four parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide usage examples, or clarify edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'lists' and resource 'comments of a YouTube community post', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_video_comments', which might cause confusion about when to use each tool for different comment types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_video_comments' or other sibling tools. It mentions pagination support but doesn't explain when pagination should be used or what scenarios require this specific tool over others in the server.

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