youtube-comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '查询' implies read-only behavior, but the description does not disclose pagination via continuationToken, the effect of sortBy/countryCode/languageCode, or what the response contains. This is minimal but not contradictory.

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 a single concise phrase with no wasted words and is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It is appropriately short, though it lacks any structured elaboration about usage or behavior.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable by itself. It does not explain pagination, sorting, language/country filtering, or how the returned comments are formatted, leaving significant gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and the schema's parameter descriptions are themselves brief. The mention of 'comment query' broadly maps to videoId, but no extra semantic value is added.

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 states a specific action ('查询' / query) and resource ('YouTube视频评论' / YouTube video comments), so an agent can tell this is the YouTube comment query tool. It does not explicitly describe returning comments for a single video or differentiate from sibling comment tools beyond the platform name, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like bilibili-comment, twitter-comment, or youtube-digest. The only hint is the platform name in the description; no exclusions or selection criteria are provided.

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