youtube

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The only behavioral hint is 'Billing per call: 1 Credits', which is a cost note but does not explain side effects, return behavior, or prerequisites. The description is essentially silent on what happens when the tool is called.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than concise writing. It lacks substance and fails to earn its place; a few meaningless phrases are not effective structure.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about expected inputs, return values, or edge cases, making it unusable for an agent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it provides none. Parameters q, gl, and hl are left entirely to the schema examples, which are insufficient without context.

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 'Auto Complete Group: Explore' does not state what the tool does beyond the name and group label. It fails to describe any verb, resource, or scope, making it essentially a tautology with no functional information.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description provides no context for scenarios where autocomplete would be appropriate, such as suggesting queries or terms.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The only disclosed behavior is 'Billing per call: 1 Credits,' which reveals a cost aspect. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what data is returned, authentication needs, or any side effects. This is a marginal addition at best.

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 text is short but not appropriately structured; 'Channel Channels Group: Channel' is redundant and confusing. The billing note is the only substantive clause. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity—this is under-specification rather than effective brevity.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, no enums, and no annotations, the description needs to provide substantial context. It provides virtually none—no return format, no parameter semantics, no behavioral notes. An agent cannot know what this tool does or how to use it 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 0%, and the description provides no elaboration on the 5 parameters (gl, hl, id, cursor, filter). With no explanation in the description, an agent has to guess parameter formats, allowed values, or relationships (e.g., whether id is required for specific filters). The description adds zero value beyond the schema.

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 'Channel Channels Group: Channel' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without indicating any action or purpose. It does not specify what 'channels' means or how this tool differs from siblings like get_v1_channel_details or get_v1_channel_videos. The only additional information, 'Billing per call', does not clarify function.

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?

There is zero guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., get_v1_channel_playlists, get_v1_channel_search). No conditions, alternatives, or exclusions are mentioned. While not misleading, the absence of any usage context fails to help an agent decide.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits such as side effects, rate limits, or required authentication. The description only mentions billing cost, which is trivial, and provides no behavioral context. It does not even indicate whether the operation is read-only or has any side effects.

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?

While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. It provides almost no useful information, so the brevity is not an asset. The single sentence does not earn its place as it fails to convey the tool's purpose or usage.

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 has only 2 parameters and no output schema, but the description is extremely thin. It does not cover any aspect of the tool's functionality, expected inputs, or return values. For an API endpoint like this, a complete description should at least state what the tool returns (e.g., community posts for a channel) and how to use the cursor for pagination, all of which are missing.

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%, and the description provides absolutely no information about the 'id' or 'cursor' parameters beyond what the schema already lists. The description does not explain the meaning of 'Channel ID' or 'Cursor token', nor does it clarify whether both are required or how they interact, leaving the agent completely without additional semantic guidance.

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 'Channel Community Group: Channel' is tautological and fails to explain the tool's function. It only repeats the tool name and title without specifying what action the tool performs or what resource it returns.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools like get_v1_community_post_comments, get_v1_community_post_details, or get_v1_channel_details. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives, making it impossible for an agent to make informed selection decisions.

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

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description was expected to carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only mentions billing per call and does not describe side effects, authentication requirements, or what data is returned, leaving the agent without essential transparency.

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 short but under-specified rather than concise. 'Channel Details Group: Channel' is nearly meaningless without context, and the billing note is the only concrete information. It does not front-load helpful content that aids tool selection or invocation.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, existing annotations, and a minimal description, the tool is severely underdocumented. An agent cannot discern the return format, error conditions, or even the basic purpose, making correct usage near impossible.

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 33% (only 'id' has a description), yet the main description adds no explanation for 'gl' or 'hl' parameters. It fails to compensate for the sparse schema, providing zero additional semantic context for 2 of 3 parameters.

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 'Channel Details Group: Channel' is vague and essentially restates the tool name and title without specifying a verb or resource. It fails to distinguish this from siblings like get_v1_channel_channels or get_v1_channel_community, leaving the agent unsure what 'details' includes.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusion criteria, making it impossible for an agent to know if this is the right endpoint.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions billing credits, which is incidental and not a behavioral trait. It does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what side effects (if any) exist, or any required authentication scopes. This is severely lacking.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It contains two fragments that provide almost no useful information. While it is undeniably brief, the brevity comes at the cost of any substantive content.

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?

Given that there are no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate for all missing context. It fails to explain what the tool does, what the parameters do, or what the response looks like. For a tool with 5 optional parameters and no required fields, this is completely inadequate.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (gl, hl, id, cursor, filter). While some parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory (e.g., id, cursor), the description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema. The tool also has zero required parameters, but the description does not explain how optionality works or what combinations are valid.

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 'Channel Playlists Group: Channel. Billing per call: 1 Credits.' merely restates the tool's name and Billing metadata. It does not state any verb or action, nor does it clarify what the tool does beyond what the name suggests. This is a tautology, failing to distinguish it from siblings like get_v1_channel_videos.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context about prerequisites, common use cases, or comparisons with sibling tools. It does not mislead, so it falls at 'no guidance' rather than 'misleading'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it discloses none. The only operational detail is 'Billing per call: 1 Credits,' which is not a behavioral trait and does not explain side effects, access requirements, pagination behavior, or return characteristics.

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 short but is under-specified rather than concise. One sentence is filler ('Channel Search Group: Channel') and the only concrete detail is billing, so the description is brief without earning its informational weight.

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 five-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide far more context, but it only gives a category label and cost. It lacks any explanation of result behavior, pagination via cursor, required vs optional inputs, or how channel search relates to other channel-level tools.

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 description adds no meaning to any of the five parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention q, gl, hl, id, or cursor, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct a valid search request or what each parameter contributes.

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 is essentially a tautology: 'Channel Search Group: Channel' restates the title and category without saying what the tool actually does. It never states that it retrieves channel search results or defines the resource being operated on, and it fails to distinguish the tool from siblings like get_v1_search or get_v1_channel_channels.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context, prerequisites, recommended query patterns, or examples, and it never mentions how channel search differs from general search or channel-specific lookups.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only adds billing cost ('1 Credits') and a category label, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, return format, pagination, filtering, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 very short, but brevity replaces substance. 'Channel Videos Group: Channel' is redundant filler and does not earn its place, while the only useful detail is the per-call billing cost.

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?

This tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides almost no operational context. It fails to explain what channels/videos are returned, how cursor pagination works, what each filter value means, or what the response looks like.

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%, and the description adds no explanation for gl, hl, id, cursor, or filter. While the schema provides examples, a title for id, and an enum for filter, the description does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 only restates the title ('Channel Videos Group: Channel.') and mentions billing cost; it never states a clear verb plus resource, such as 'Retrieves videos for a channel.' The function name hints at the purpose, but the text itself is essentially tautological.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_v1_channel_search or get_v1_channel_playlists. The description provides no context, exclusions, or alternative tool references.

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

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

Annotations are completely absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals nothing about whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, what the response contains, or any side effects. The billing mention is irrelevant to behavior. This is a critical gap for a tool that likely makes an API call.

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 short but wastes space on a grouping label and billing information rather than stating the tool's functionality. It is under-specified rather than concise; it lacks a clear subject-verb-object structure and front-loads irrelevant details.

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 list tool with one optional parameter, the description fails to mention return values, pagination behavior, or how the tool relates to the community post. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should compensate but does not. The absence of any usage context makes it incomplete.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter 'cursor', with a description pointing to the Community Post Details endpoint. The tool description itself adds no parameter information, but per the rubric, a high schema coverage baseline of 3 applies. No extra meaning is contributed by the description.

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 'Community Post Comments Group: Community Post. Billing per call: 1 Credits.' does not explicitly state that the tool retrieves comments for a community post. It reads as a category label or billing note, relying entirely on the tool name to convey purpose. It is ambiguous and does not distinguish from sibling tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_v1_video_comments or get_v1_community_post_details. The only additional information is a billing credit note, which is not usage guidance. The description fails to mention any prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any rate limits, billing details beyond a generic credit count, or side effects. The billing note is not a behavioral trait.

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 brief, but that brevity stems from under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence is essentially a label and billing note, offering no substantive information, so it reads as a placeholder.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description is the only guide for agents. It fails to state what the tool does, what it returns, or any constraints, making it wholly incomplete for even a simple GET 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 description does not explain the 'id' parameter at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds zero value beyond what the schema already provides, and even the schema only includes a title and example.

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 'Community Post Details Group: Community Post' merely restates the tool's name and category without explaining the action (e.g., retrieves details) or the resource. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_v1_community_post_comments, which also relates to community posts.

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 is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any indication of when this is the appropriate choice.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions billing per call but says nothing about side effects, whether it's read-only, rate limits, or what the response contains. The description offers zero transparency about the tool's 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?

The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification, not conciseness. The phrase 'Home Group: Explore.' wastes its two sentences with useless filler, while the billing note isn't structured to aid understanding. Every line should add value, and these don't.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, no annotations, and three undocumented parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no context on how to invoke the tool correctly or interpret results, making it nearly impossible for an agent to use it effectively.

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%, yet the description does not mention any parameters (gl, hl, cursor) or their meaning. It provides no hints about how to use these optional parameters or what formats they expect.

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 'Home Group: Explore.' provides no specific action or resource. It fails to state what the tool actually does—'Explore' is vague and doesn't indicate whether it retrieves home page content, lists items, or performs an action. It also doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like get_v1_search or get_v1_channel_details.

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 is given on when to use this tool. It doesn't mention alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases. The only additional line about billing is irrelevant to usage selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals billing information (1 credit per call), which is minimal. It does not state that this is a read-only operation that fetches playlist metadata, nor does it disclose any side effects or requirements (e.g., valid playlist ID needed). The description is nearly empty of behavioral context.

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 short (one line), but it is under-specified, not concise. It provides a group label and billing info but no functional description. It is not well-structured because it fails to explain the tool's purpose or parameters, so it does not earn its place as a useful description.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not mention what data is returned, what the id parameter identifies, or how it differs from sibling tools like get_v1_playlist_videos. A full description is needed but absent.

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%, and the description provides no parameter information. The schema itself has examples (gl, hl, id) and a title for id, but the description adds nothing about what these parameters mean or how they relate to the tool's function. For a tool with 3 parameters and no schema documentation, the description does not compensate at all.

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 is a tautological group label rather than a functional description. It says 'Playlist Details Group: Playlist' and mentions billing, but does not state that this tool fetches details for a specific playlist using an ID. The title 'Playlist Details' plus name get_v1_playlist_details imply it, but the description fails to articulate the tool's purpose (getting playlist metadata given an ID).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs sibling tools like get_v1_playlist_videos or get_v1_channel_playlists. It does not mention that the 'id' parameter is the playlist ID and is required for function. The only usage-related note is about billing credits, which is not contextual usage guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only mentions billing per call and provides no information about the operation's behavior, side effects, response format, or limitations.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The 'Group: Playlist' label and billing note do not earn their place since they provide no functional value.

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?

Given the tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It should at least state the tool's purpose and key behavior, but it provides only a taxonomic label and billing info.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the four parameters (gl, hl, id, cursor). Without any parameter explanations, the agent has no insight into how to use them.

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 'Playlist Videos Group: Playlist' merely restates the tool name and groups it under a category. It does not state what the tool does, such as retrieving videos from a playlist, making it a tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context, prerequisites, or scenarios are provided, and the description lacks any actionable usage instruction.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose operational behavior. It only states billing per call, but does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what the response format is, or if it requires authentication. For a search tool expected to be safe, this is a significant gap.

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 very short, but the brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficient communication. It wastes the opportunity to state the tool's role among 20+ similar endpoints, so it's not 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what the search returns, how parameters interact, or how to handle pagination via 'cursor'. It lacks critical information for an agent to use 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 coverage is 0%, meaning the parameters (q, gl, hl, cursor) are unexplained in the description. The description adds no meaning to these parameters, leaving the agent to guess their purpose (e.g., 'q' is likely a query, but not defined).

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 title 'Search' and the description 'Search Group: Explore' hint at a search operation, but it's ambiguous what is being searched (videos, channels, etc.) and what 'Explore' means. No specific verb like 'search for' or scope is provided, making it unclear compared to siblings like 'get_v1_video_details'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_v1_auto_complete' or 'get_v2_trending'. No prerequisites, limitations, or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions billing per call, but does not describe what the tool does with inputs, what data is returned, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. The description is almost entirely uninformative about behavior beyond the name.

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 short (two fragments), which is concise, but it is under-specified. Conciseness must balance with informativeness; here it sacrifices all useful content. The format is not front-loaded with key purpose because there is no purpose stated. It is not a well-structured description.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no description of return values, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine expected inputs or outputs. The description should explain that it retrieves comments for a video, likely paginated with cursor, and might require an API key. This is completely inadequate.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of parameters. The schema itself has basic types and examples (gl, hl, id, cursor) but no titles for gl and hl, and no description of what each parameter means or how they interact. The tool description does not compensate at all, leaving parameters ambiguous.

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 is minimal: 'Video Comments Group: Video. Billing per call: 1 Credits.' It mentions 'Video' group and billing, but does not explicitly state the action (e.g., 'Retrieve comments for a video'). The tool name 'get_v1_video_comments' implies fetching comments, but the description does not clearly articulate the resource or the result. It is vague and not differentiated from sibling tools like get_v1_community_post_comments or get_v1_video_details.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. It only mentions billing and group, which is not usage guidance. The agent is left to infer from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The description only mentions billing and grouping; it does not explain what data is returned, whether any side effects exist, or any operational characteristics. This is a complete lack of behavioral transparency.

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 short (two clauses) but it wastes the limited space on billing and grouping rather than conveying purpose. This is under-specification, not effective conciseness. The structure does not front-load useful information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and when to use it. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with only the tool name and parameter examples. This is completely inadequate for a tool with three parameters and sibling tools that need differentiation.

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% and the description does not mention any of the parameters (gl, hl, id). The input schema provides examples but no descriptions. The description adds no meaning to the parameters, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 'Video Details Group: Video. Billing per call: 1 Credits.' merely restates the title 'Video Details' and provides billing info. It does not specify what the tool does or what details it returns, though the tool name suggests getting video details. This is a tautology rather than a functional description.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as get_v2_video_details or get_v1_video_comments. The only context provided is billing per call, which does not help with selection. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It only states billing per call, which is a minor detail, but fails to mention pagination behavior, whether calls are read-only, or any side effects. The phrasing 'Video Related Contents Group' suggests a grouping but is unhelpful.

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 short, which could be concise, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks structure and fails to provide any useful information. The sentence 'Video Related Contents Group: Video. Billing per call: 1 Credits.' is wasteful because it repeats the title and provides billing info that might belong elsewhere.

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?

Given 4 parameters, 0 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. For a tool with multiple parameters and no other structured metadata, it must explain its purpose, parameters, and expected behavior. This description provides none of that.

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 must compensate, but it does not mention any parameters. It does not explain the meaning of 'gl', 'hl', 'id', or 'cursor' beyond what the schema properties provide; the schema already has titles for 'id' and 'cursor'. The description adds no semantic value.

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 is nearly a tautology, repeating the title 'Video Related Contents' without specifying what kind of related contents (e.g., similar videos, suggestions) or how they are selected. It does not hint at a verb or action beyond the obvious 'get', and provides no differentiation from siblings like get_v1_video_comments or get_v2_video_details.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions billing, which is not usage guidance. An agent cannot infer whether this is for recommendations, related links, or other content, nor when to prefer it over sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states '(Some videos may be protected.)' – a vague caution that doesn't explain behavior such as failure modes, pagination, or authentication. It carries the full burden but gives almost no useful behavioral information.

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 short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It wastes the little space on billing info and a vague protection warning, while omitting essential details about the tool's function.

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?

Given the tool has 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must fully explain what it does and what it returns. It fails completely, leaving the agent to guess the tool's purpose and output format.

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%, and the only parameter 'id' has a title 'Video ID' and an example but no description. The description adds no parameter meaning. The example provides some clue, but the tool description doesn't explain how the ID is used or any constraints, so it barely compensates for the lack of schema details.

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 says 'Video Streaming Data' but doesn't specify what operation it performs (fetch? list? analyze?) or what the data contains. It vaguely implies retrieving streaming data for a video but lacks a specific verb+resource combination. Siblings like get_v1_video_details suggest distinct functions, but this description doesn't differentiate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description only mentions 'Group: Video' and billing credits, with no context about scenarios where this tool is appropriate or alternatives like search or video details.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the billing cost (1 credit per call) but provides no insight into the response format, authentication needs, rate limits, or any other behavioral aspects. The word 'Explore' is not informative.

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, with no fluff or unnecessary words. The billing information is useful, and the structure is clean, though it could have included more substantive content without harming conciseness.

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?

Even for a simple tool with no parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not state what the tool returns (e.g., list of trending videos, trending searches, etc.) or how it differs from the many v1 tools. The billing info and vague 'Explore' are insufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered (100%) and there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter details.

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 says 'Trending Group: Explore', which implies the tool is for exploring trending content but lacks a specific verb-resource statement. The name 'get_v2_trending' and title 'Trending' hint at the purpose, but the description itself is vague about what exactly is retrieved.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The phrase 'Trending Group' suggests it is for trending content, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only mentions billing credits and fails to indicate whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. No behavioral transparency is offered.

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 short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks essential information that would make every word valuable, resulting in an incomplete tool definition.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description provides almost no context. A tool with even two parameters needs far more explanation to be usable.

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%, and the description adds nothing about the 'hl' or 'video_id' parameters. The provided examples in the schema are the only hints, but the description itself is meaningless for parameter understanding.

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 merely restates the tool name 'Video Details (v2)' and adds generic group and billing info. It does not specify a verb or resource, nor does it distinguish from sibling tool get_v1_video_details.

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 is provided on when to use this tool, when not to, or how it differs from alternatives like get_v1_video_details. The description is entirely devoid of usage context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only mentions billing per call, which is a minor detail, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, data returned, or limitations. It is completely inadequate for a tool that likely performs a read operation on channel videos.

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 short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks essential information. The sentence 'Channel Videos Group: Channel. Billing per call: 1 Credits.' is not structured to front-load useful information; it is just a label and a billing note. It does not earn its place as a meaningful description.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested object parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use the 'body' parameter effectively, or any behavioral context. The sibling tools suggest a rich API, but this description provides no completeness.

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 one parameter 'body' with a description that includes an example JSON. The schema description coverage is 100% because the 'body' parameter is described with an example. However, the description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. The example provides some context, but the tool description itself does not explain the parameters. Since the schema covers the parameter, the baseline is 3, but the description adds no value, so a 2 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 'Channel Videos Group: Channel. Billing per call: 1 Credits.' is vague and does not clearly state what the tool does. It mentions 'Channel Videos' but lacks a specific verb or resource description. The sibling tool 'get_v1_channel_videos' likely has a similar purpose, and this description does not distinguish itself. The title 'Channel Videos' is repeated, making it close to a tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The sibling tools include 'get_v1_channel_videos' which likely overlaps, but no differentiation is provided.

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