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

Despite readOnlyHint/openWorldHint already covering safety, the description discloses a great deal more: a hard cap of 50, snapshot-based counts taken twice daily that are explicitly 'not live from YouTube,' history limited by connect date and plan window, the shortened-window disclosure, and a 'Problem' sentence for restricted videos. These caveats materially shape how an agent should interpret and present results.

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 resource and ordering lead the paragraph and each subsequent clause carries distinct information (line contents, limits, refresh cadence, history bounds). It is a dense run-on sentence rather than a structured list, which slightly hurts scanability but wastes no words.

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, the description must explain returns, and it does: it enumerates what each line contains (views, 7-day gain, video_id, Problem sentence) and the freshness/limit constraints. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool is 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 100%, so both parameters (kind, limit) are already documented including defaults and the 50 maximum. The description restates the 50 cap but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 when the schema carries parameter meaning.

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 opening phrase 'Published videos, most recent first' names the exact resource and ordering, and the description notes it returns 'the video_id that the write tools take,' so the agent grasps the tool's role. It stops short of naming which sibling (e.g., runsheet_list_playlists or runsheet_get_watchlist) should be preferred for other content, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the listing surface for published videos whose video_ids feed the write tools. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus the other listing siblings (playlists, watchlist, schedule), which an agent would have to infer.

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