Get YouTube Comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses two behavioral traits: pagination (one explicit page) and the matchTerms scoping limitation. However, it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or return format, which limits 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately adding a caveat. No wasted words and the critical limitation is stated efficiently.

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 tool has six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain pagination mechanics, ordering behavior, reply inclusion, or what a returned page looks like. A much richer description is needed for an agent to use this tool confidently.

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. Only matchTerms is explained further (its filtering scope), while url, limit, order, pageToken, and includeReplies remain semantically undefined. This is insufficient for a six-parameter tool.

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 retrieves one explicit page of public YouTube comment threads, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'one explicit page' and 'public', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from youtube_find_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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like youtube_find_comments. The note about matchTerms implying a limitation is the only hint, but it doesn't direct the agent to alternate tools or state prerequisite conditions.

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