list_video_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 discloses that 'Pagination scraping is supported,' which adds some behavioral context beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., comment structure), leaving significant gaps for a tool with no 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 description is concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and a key feature (pagination). It is front-loaded with the main purpose, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating core functionality from additional features.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on output format (e.g., what data is returned), error conditions, or detailed behavioral traits like rate limits. While it mentions pagination, this is insufficient for full contextual understanding, especially without annotations.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage tips. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'lists comments of a YouTube video.' It specifies the resource (YouTube video comments) and the action (list), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_post_comments' or 'list_items_with_next_token,' which prevents a score of 5.

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 minimal guidance: it mentions 'Pagination scraping is supported,' which hints at usage for handling multiple pages, but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_post_comments' or 'list_items_with_next_token,' nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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