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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It lists the output fields (mode, week, velocity, counters, abort criteria, quota) which is helpful, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive. However, as a 'get' operation, this is implied.

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?

Single concise sentence front-loads the purpose and lists all key return components. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, which is sufficient for the agent to use it correctly.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. Schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by detailing the output contents, which indirectly aids understanding but does not need to describe parameters.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the current state of Alya's adaptive YouTube engine and enumerates specific components like mode, week, velocity, counters, abort criteria, and quota. This verb+resource structure is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like youtube_health_check or youtube_get_performance.

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 the tool is for checking pipeline state, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as youtube_health_check or youtube_get_recommendations. No exclusion criteria or context for selection is provided.

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