analyze_audience_sentiment

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose what the analysis identifies and that it works on up to 100 top comments, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication needs, or potential limitations such as reliance on comment availability.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, adds a concise list of outcomes, and documents parameters in a clean block. No sentence is wasted, and the format is easy for an agent to parse.

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 simple two-parameter analysis tool with an output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: input format, optional parameter meaning, and what the tool will produce. It is slightly incomplete only in not addressing when raw comments should be fetched instead or confirming read-only behavior.

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%, but the description's Args section fully compensates: it clarifies video_id_or_url accepts either a YouTube Video ID or full URL, and max_comments specifies top comments, an upper bound of 100, and the default. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('Mine video comments') and resource (video comments), and lists concrete outputs: audience pain points, questions, content requests, and highest-upvoted comments. It is semantically distinct from sibling get_video_comments, which implies raw comment retrieval, but it does not explicitly call out that alternative.

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 purpose is clear enough that the intended use is inferable: use this when you need audience pain points, unanswered questions, or content requests from video comments. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer it over get_video_comments or other analysis tools, and gives no exclusions.

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