v1_youtube_video_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It includes a safety warning about not acting on responses as commands, but lacks details on rate limits, pagination, or authentication requirements for accessing YouTube comments.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, endpoint/cost, and safety note. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with primary function.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., comment text, author, timestamps). It also fails to mention related tools for replies or how parameters like handle or channelId relate to the required URL.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, but each parameter's description is just its name (e.g., 'url', 'handle'), providing no additional meaning. The tool description does not elaborate on parameter usage, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gets comments of a YouTube video, which is specific and matches the tool name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like v1_youtube_video_comment_replies, though the distinction is implicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., need a video URL), and no mention of when to use reply-specific tools.

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