Get YouTube Video Comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context: sorting by popularity, return fields (author, text, like count, pinned status), and the limitation to top-level comments, going beyond mere annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the main action front-loaded and every sentence carrying meaningful information. It avoids redundancy and unnecessary detail.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, return values, and scope limitations. Combined with strong annotations and a well-documented schema, it provides a complete picture for an agent to select and 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%, with both video and limit fully described in the input schema. The tool description reinforces the 'top-level comments' aspect but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (get top comments), the resource (YouTube video), and key details (sorted by popularity, top-level only, no replies). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_video_info and get_transcript by specifying its focus on comments and the exact output fields.

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 provides a clear scope of use (top comments, sorted by popularity) and explicitly excludes replies, guiding when not to use it. However, it does not name an alternative tool for retrieving replies or other comment types, so it falls short of the highest bar for explicit alternatives.

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