list_youtube_video_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses API method, quota cost, pagination mechanism, max cap, and a common failure. This is comprehensive for a read-only list tool, though it could explicitly state read-only nature.

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 concise and well-structured with a main line, notes, pagination, returns, and common failure. Each section is short and to the point, with no unnecessary words.

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 7 parameters and no schema descriptions or annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, outputs, and failure. Output schema exists, so detailed return fields are not needed. Missing some param details and usage guidelines, but overall adequate.

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 explains pagination tokens, max_threads cap, and order default, but does not describe video_id, text_format, or include_replies beyond implicit hints. The output description partially fills gaps but not completely.

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 'List comment threads for a YouTube video (public comments),' specifying the verb, resource, and context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on videos, playlists, or channels.

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 provides basic context (listing comments) and mentions a failure case (403 if disabled). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. With no sibling comment tools, the need for guidance is lower, but still room for improvement.

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