Get video comments

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns only top-level comments, accepts ID or URL, and costs 1 quota unit. It does not cover pagination or error behavior, but those are minor given the annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler: the first states the operation and input, the second the cost. Essential information 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, read-only tool with a small schema, the description covers the core behavior, input form, and quota. With annotations supplying the safety profile and the schema supplying constraints, little is missing; the only gap is explaining order semantics or output shape, but those are not critical for invoking it correctly.

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. It clarifies the required 'video' parameter as an ID or URL, but says nothing about the meaning of 'order' (relevance vs time) or 'max_results' beyond what the schema's names, enum, and constraints already show. Partial compensation for a low-coverage schema.

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 identifies a specific resource (video comments), restricts to top-level comments, and accepts ID or URL. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_videos, get_channel, and get_transcript.

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 phrase 'on a video' implies use when you have a video ID or URL, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives, when not to use it, or how it relates to list_transcripts or search. Usage context is only implied.

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