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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Video Comments' reveals nothing about whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's paginated, what format the comments are returned in, or any rate limits. This is completely inadequate for a tool with 4 parameters.

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?

While technically concise with only two words, this is a case of harmful under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide any meaningful information that would help an AI agent understand or use the tool, making it inefficient despite its short length.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description 'Video Comments' is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use it, what it returns, or any behavioral characteristics. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 4 parameters with basic descriptions. The tool description adds zero additional information about parameter meaning, relationships, or usage context beyond what's in the schema. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Video Comments' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what action the tool performs. It doesn't indicate whether this tool retrieves, creates, updates, or deletes video comments, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'community_post_comments' or 'video_details'.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'video_details', 'community_post_comments', and 'video_related_contents' available, there's no indication of what specific video comment functionality this tool provides or when it should be selected over other tools.

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