get_video_comments

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It does disclose that only top-level comments are returned and lists the returned fields, which is useful. However, it does not mention possible failure modes such as disabled comments, pagination behavior, or any API limits.

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 with no filler: the first states the action and scope, and the second lists the return fields. Every word earns its place and the key behavior is front-loaded.

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 simple three-parameter read tool, the description covers what it does, its scope, and the return shape. It does not describe error cases or pagination, but that is a minor gap given the low complexity and fully documented schema.

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 input schema already explains url, order, and max_results. The tool description does not add parameter-level details beyond that, matching the baseline expected when the schema is fully documented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch top-level comments from a YouTube video.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the transcript, metadata, channel, and playlist siblings, and it names the exact returned fields so an agent knows what to expect.

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 context is clear: use this to get comments for a specific video, and no sibling tool appears to offer comments at all. There are no explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use instructions, but none are strongly needed given the unique resource.

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