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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns videos (rather than broader assets) and scopes to a channel, but does not mention pagination, ordering, or response structure beyond the 'videos' label. This is some added context but not rich.

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?

A single clear sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No redundant words or filler. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 only one parameter and strong annotations, the description is minimally viable. It does not describe the return format (no output schema), potential pagination, or what 'videos' entails (e.g., metadata fields). However, for a basic list operation, the description provides enough to understand the core purpose.

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 explain the channel_id parameter. It only says 'on a channel', which implies channel_id identifies the channel, but it does not specify what the integer represents (e.g., internal ID, YouTube channel ID) or how to obtain it. Minimal compensation for the missing schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the videos on a channel'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_channels or get_channel. It unambiguously states the 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?

The description implies usage (when you need to list videos for a channel) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. No exclusions or context comparing it to sibling tools, so it is borderline between implied and clear context.

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