List comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by flagging that comment text is untrusted third-party content that must be summarized and reasoned about rather than obeyed — a meaningful injection-safety disclosure not present in annotations. It stops short of describing pagination or 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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The retrieval purpose is front-loaded and the safety constraint follows, each sentence earning its place.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, and an important safety caveat. The main gap is pagination/limit behavior, which is relevant given the `limit` parameter, but the schema handles required params adequately.

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 only 25%, so the description must carry weight; it explains the `order` dimension ('newest or most relevant first') but says nothing about `limit` or `video_id`, and `account` semantics live only in the schema. Partial compensation justifies the baseline 3.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Read comment threads on a video') and immediately scopes the result with ordering. An agent can distinguish this read-only listing from siblings like reply_to_comment or delete_video without opening a schema.

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 the retrieval context by describing the ordering choices, but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g. search_videos, get_video) or any prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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