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

The description discloses meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: newest-first ordering, accepted channel identifier formats, ids_only behavior, and the 500-per-page ceiling. Since readOnlyHint=true already signals the operation's safety profile, the description does extra work by documenting ordering and output modes. There is no contradiction with the read-only annotation.

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 concise yet information-dense, with no filler or redundancy. The core action and ordering are front-loaded, and the id-only optimization is explained in a short second sentence.

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 rich input schema, output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the remaining essentials: ordering, accepted identifiers, ids_only behavior, and pagination limits. The only material gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from the sibling list/search tools, which means an agent must infer when this tool is preferred.

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 input schema already has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is solid. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of ids_only, clarifying that a channel name or handle is acceptable even though the schema names the parameter 'name', and noting the 500-item limit when ids_only is used. This is a meaningful complement to the schema rather than a mere restatement.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it lists videos from a channel's Videos tab, and it adds a useful behavioral detail by specifying 'newest first'. It also lists the accepted identifier formats, which helps an agent identify valid inputs. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool latest_channel_videos, so some sibling distinction is left to inference.

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 provides one specific usage guideline: use ids_only=true when you only need IDs to fetch transcripts, which is genuinely useful for call selection. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over search_channel_videos, latest_channel_videos, or list_playlist_videos. The intended use case is implied rather than clearly stated.

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