whale_comments

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world access, so safety is covered. The description adds two pieces of real behavioral context: results are ranked/top ('hot') rather than chronological or exhaustive, and anonymous access is a fallback when no credential exists. It does not say whether anonymous results are limited, rate-limited, or otherwise degraded.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler; the operation and the anonymity condition are both front-loaded. Its brevity is close to under-specification, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 zero parameter descriptions and no output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: what bvid identifies, what 'hot' ordering means, how many comments come back, and what the anonymous path changes about the response. An agent can guess the call shape from the schema but not the semantics.

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 and it does not — neither bvid nor count is mentioned. The schema's regex and 1–20 range imply bvid is a video identifier and count is a limit, but the description adds no semantics such as what bvid means or that count caps the number of hot comments returned.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read hot comments'), which is distinct from every sibling (whale_video, whale_subtitles, whale_popular, etc.) since none of them return comments. It stops short of saying comments belong to a video identified by bvid, so the object of the read is only implied by the schema.

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 only conditional ('anonymously when no credential is configured') describes an auth behavior, not when to choose this tool over an alternative. There is no guidance on when to call whale_comments versus whale_video or whale_popular when an agent wants comment-adjacent data.

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