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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the 'Read only' line merely restates that. Beyond the structured data it adds real behavior: a strict result cap of 50, inclusion of rejected/removed/unprocessable videos with status 'rejected', and the presence of a trailing 'Problem' sentence explaining publish blockers or age/country restrictions.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose before diving into edge cases (rejected videos, Problem lines, result cap). It is denser than strictly necessary toward the end, but each sentence contributes distinct operational detail.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so well: line composition, the video_id field, status values, the Problem sentence, and the 50-row cap. Only the relationship between the 'days' window and the 'last seven days' rejected-video rule is left slightly ambiguous.

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 single 'days' parameter (default 28, max 90) is fully documented there. The description adds nothing about the look-ahead window, so baseline 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States the exact resource and scope: videos scheduled or ready but unpublished, ordered soonest first, framed as 'the running order: what is going out and when.' It is clearly distinguishable from library/watchlist siblings, which are different collections.

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?

Gives a clear context (the upcoming publication order) and even names the downstream tools that consume its video_id values, which implicitly tells the agent why to call it. It does not, however, contrast itself against sibling listings such as runsheet_get_library or runsheet_get_watchlist, so the when-not is left to inference.

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