List Comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for adding genuine behavioral context the annotations lack: the quota cost (1 unit per page) and the 50-result page cap. It stops short of noting permission or auth requirements.

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, zero filler, with the scope statement front-loaded and the quota note second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values and next_page_token handling need not be explained here; quota and page size are covered. The remaining gap is that the interplay among all-optional parameters (video vs. my_channel vs. status) is left entirely to the 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 every parameter (video, status, order, search, page_token, my_channel, limit) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or default details beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (list) and resource (comments) and pins the scope: top-level comments only, either on one video or across the channel's videos. The 'top-level' qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling list_replies without needing 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?

Usage is only implied via the scope statement; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. It never routes the agent to list_replies for threaded replies or to the approve/hold/reject siblings for moderation, even though both are close neighbors in the tool set.

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