Read views, likes and comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description still adds real value by restating read-only in context and by disclosing the plan gate and the pre-check call. It also discloses result ordering ('oldest first') and that comments carry author and time, which the annotations do not convey. It omits pagination or volume limits for comment lists, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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 compact sentences, each with a distinct job: eligibility gate, payload contents, default. The plan restriction is front-loaded where an agent will see it before calling, and there is no redundant filler.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return payload (views, likes, comments with author and time) and its ordering, which is exactly what an agent needs in place of an output schema. It lacks only comment-list volume or pagination behavior and any explicit contrast with get_video.

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% and the single videoId parameter is already documented, including its pattern source and default. The description's 'Defaults to the last recording' merely echoes the schema rather than adding format or resolution detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 names a specific resource and its contents: 'What viewers did with a video: its view count, likes, and every comment (oldest first, with author and time).' That is far more precise than the title, and it implicitly separates this read-aggregation tool from write siblings like like_video and comment_on_video. It stops short of naming a specific sibling it should be preferred over, such as get_video or get_transcript, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

It gives one concrete precondition, 'Recordful Pro only (check get_status recorder.account.plan first)', which is genuinely actionable routing guidance. It also states the default behavior when no ID is passed. However, it never says when to call this instead of get_video, list_videos, or get_transcript, so the alternative selection is left to inference.

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