youtube_list_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation, which is safe. However, it does not disclose potential errors (e.g., invalid video ID), authentication requirements, or pagination behavior beyond max_results. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 concise, with a clear two-line summary followed by a parameter list. No wasted words, and the formatting is easy to scan. Slightly terse but effective.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description does not mention pagination tokens or the structure of the returned data (e.g., comment text, author). Since there is no output schema, this would be helpful. However, the tool's core function is adequately covered, and the sibling context shows this is a basic read operation.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description explains all three parameters: video_id (ID), max_results (max 100), and order (relevance/time). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's types and defaults, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'top-level comments on a video', making the tool's function immediately obvious. It is distinct from sibling tools like youtube_post_comment and youtube_reply_to_comment, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 description implies usage: when you need to read comments, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or mention alternatives like youtube_reply_to_comment for writing comments. Given the sibling list, the context is clear but not formally articulated.

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