get_video_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains the effect of omitting video_id, the max_results cap, the order options with their meanings, and the shape of the returned list. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or pagination, but for a read-only fetch it provides solid transparency.

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 well-structured with an opening sentence, an Args block, and a Returns block. Every line carries necessary information, and the main purpose is front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Despite having no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, optional behavior, and return contents, which is enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It falls slightly short of a 5 only by not addressing potential pagination, auth requirements, or rate limits, though these are less critical for a comment-fetch operation.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters: video_id's optionality and fallback behavior, max_results' count and cap of 100, and order's two allowed values with their meanings. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetches') and a clear resource ('comment threads and audience discussions') for either a video or the whole channel. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all analytics or video-list oriented and none of which mention comments.

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 clear context for when to use the tool and how to vary behavior: providing video_id targets one video, while omitting it retrieves recent channel-wide comments. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the video-versus-channel guidance gives enough context for correct invocation.

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