youtube_top_comments

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

readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already tell the agent this is a safe external read. The description adds the useful distinction that only top-level comments (not replies) are returned, but says nothing about pagination, ordering defaults, or quota/rate behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with the scope stated first and the use case second; nothing is wasted, though it is arguably a bit thin given the undocumented parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a simple three-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but with 0% parameter coverage and no usage exclusions, an agent still has gaps about ordering and result limits.

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 carries the full burden, yet it mentions none of the three parameters (video_id, order, max_results). The only implicit signal is "top-level," which loosely relates to the relevance/time ordering, leaving the enum and the 1-100 max_results bounds undocumented in prose.

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?

States the specific resource and scope: top-level comments on a video, which clearly separates it from youtube_video_details and youtube_channel_overview. It lacks an explicit verb (list/fetch), but the noun phrase is unambiguous enough for selection.

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?

"Useful for audience sentiment and content ideas" gives a motivation for calling it, but there is no when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling tools that fetch video metadata or search results. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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