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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the read-only nature and external data source are covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing newest-first ordering, the metrics returned (views, likes), and a cost of 1 credit, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result limits despite exposing a cursor.

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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded, followed by ordering and return fields, then the credit cost. No redundant or filler wording; only the parenthetical pricing sits outside the core statement.

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 tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it returns (Shorts with views and likes) and how they are ordered. The main remaining gap is that pagination semantics are only implied by the cursor parameter in the schema.

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%, and the schema already explains handle format ('@MrBeast'), the UC... channel id form, and that cursor comes from the previous page. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond this, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource (a channel's Shorts) plus ordering (newest first) and returned metrics (views and likes), which distinguishes it from youtube_channel_videos and youtube_search. The verb is implicit ('list/fetch') rather than stated, so it stops short of a full verb+resource formulation.

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 word 'Shorts' implies the use case (you want short-form videos for one channel rather than long-form or a keyword search), but no alternative tool is named and no condition for choosing handle vs channelId appears in the description. Guidance is inferable rather than explicit.

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