Get Video Comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds value by specifying 'with pagination support,' which clarifies behavioral traits beyond annotations (e.g., handling large datasets via pageToken). It doesn't detail rate limits or auth needs, but this is acceptable given the annotations cover core safety.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get comments from a YouTube video') and adds key behavioral context ('with pagination support'). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required), rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), and 100% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It lacks an output schema, but the description doesn't need to explain return values. It could benefit from more usage context, but overall it's adequate for the tool's profile.

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%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema (e.g., videoId, maxResults with limits, order with enum, pageToken). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high coverage without extra value.

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 action ('Get comments') and resource ('from a YouTube video'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like videos_getVideo or transcripts_getTranscript. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other comment-related tools (though none are listed among siblings), making it clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 implies usage for retrieving comments from a specific video, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for searching videos or getting channel info). It mentions pagination support, which hints at use for large datasets, but lacks clear when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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