VidLens

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

Provides useful latency estimate [~1-3s] not found in annotations. However, with no annotations provided, the description omits critical safety context: it doesn't confirm this is read-only (distinguishing it from 'importComments'), doesn't explain what 'structured provenance' contains, and omits error behavior or rate limits.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence front-loaded with the core action. The timing bracket is efficiently placed. Minor deduction for 'structured provenance' being jargon without explanation.

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?

Inadequate for a 7-parameter tool with zero schema documentation and no output schema. Missing: return value structure, explanation of 'provenance', parameter details, and error conditions. The description covers barely the minimum conceptual surface area.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by implying functionality for 'includeReplies' and 'maxTopLevel' via 'optional replies' and 'top-level'. However, it fails to address 'dryRun', 'order', 'languageHint', or the required 'videoIdOrUrl' parameter semantics, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 clear verb (read) and resource (comments), specifying 'top-level' and 'optional replies' as scope modifiers. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling 'searchComments'—both read comments, but this appears to be direct retrieval by video ID vs. search across collections.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus 'searchComments', 'importComments', or other comment-related siblings. The timing notation [~1-3s] hints at latency but doesn't explain selection criteria.

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