youtube_list_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires authentication, whether it consumes quota, what the response format looks like, or that it returns only top-level comments (replies excluded). The description adds a bit of behavior (order/max_results semantics) but falls short of full disclosure for a read operation with no annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured as a one-line purpose plus an args block. Each parameter is documented in a compact line. No wasted words, though the final line has a trailing blank space. It earns its sentences well, though it could not be considered wasteful.

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 and no annotations, the description provides the only context. While it documents all parameters well, it omits response format details (what fields each comment contains), any authentication requirement, pagination behavior, and rate limit constraints. For a 3-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, more context would improve usability.

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%, and there are 3 parameters. The description compensates well by explaining video_id (YouTube video ID), max_results (number of comment threads, max 100), and order ('relevance' or 'time'). It adds the max cap of 100 and the valid order values, which go beyond the bare schema (which only shows defaults). This meaningfully aids parameter usage.

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 lists top-level comments on a video with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('top-level comments on a video'). It distinguishes from siblings like youtube_post_comment and youtube_reply_to_comment, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from a potential alternative for listing replies. The purpose is clear and specific.

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 context (listing comments on a video) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives/exclusions. It doesn't mention that this returns only top-level comments and not replies, and doesn't distinguish from youtube_post_comment or youtube_reply_to_comment scenarios. No prerequisites or limitations are stated.

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