get_video_comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose pagination behavior, cursor/count defaults, and the referer purpose of source_keyword. However, it does not clarify whether these are only top-level comments, what pagination metadata is returned, or any rate-limit/auth considerations, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 compact and well-structured with a one-line purpose followed by a clear Args/Returns breakdown. Every element earns its place, and the key action is front-loaded.

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?

For a paginated retrieval tool, the description covers the core invocation details: required ID, pagination parameters, and return shape. It is slightly incomplete because it does not distinguish top-level comments from nested sub-comments, especially given the get_sub_comments sibling, but it is otherwise sufficient for calling the tool.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: aweme_id identifies the video, cursor drives pagination, count sets page size, and source_keyword is for the referer. This adds meaning well beyond the raw schema fields.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get comments for a Douyin video.' It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_sub_comments, so an agent must infer the difference between comments and sub-comments.

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 implied: use this tool when you need comments for a Douyin video. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose get_video_comments over get_sub_comments or other siblings, so the selection guidance remains implicit rather than stated.

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