Find YouTube Comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It provides a valuable caveat: results only describe retrieved pages, never every comment on the video. This sets accurate expectations about partial coverage. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects, but for a read-only search tool this key limitation is well stated.

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?

Two sentences, no waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately follows with the critical scope limitation. Every word earns its place.

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 the useful caveat, the description is too sparse for a tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It doesn't explain the meaning of order, limit, pageToken, includeReplies, or how pagination works. This leaves the agent under-informed for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for 7 parameters. It implicitly references matchTerms ('literal terms') and maxPages ('explicit bounded number of pages'), but provides no meaning for url, limit, order, pageToken, or includeReplies. This leaves significant gaps for correct parameter usage.

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 specific action ('finds literal terms') and resource ('comment pages'), with the important scope qualifier 'explicit bounded number of comment pages.' This distinguishes it from sibling tool youtube_get_comments, which presumably returns comments without term filtering.

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?

Usage context is implied: use when searching for literal terms within a bounded number of comment pages. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over youtube_get_comments or other alternatives, nor any 'when not to use' exclusions.

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