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

Annotations mark this as destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false. The description says it submits a builder task but does not disclose that it is a write operation with destructive potential, that repeated calls are not idempotent, or any rate limits or side effects. With annotations already covering the safety profile, the description still fails to explain the non-idempotent, destructive nature of task submission.

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 a single sentence listing trigger keywords and another listing spider_ids. It is front-loaded with intent triggers, which is helpful for routing, but the keyword enumeration is dense and likely redundant given that the schema already enumerates the same spider_ids. It is somewhat bloated and repetitive.

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 tool with 14 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides intent triggers but omits critical details such as when to prefer one spider_id over another, what task submission returns, and how to retrieve results. It is minimally adequate but leaves an agent without enough guidance to invoke the correct collector confidently.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has a description. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema; it only names the tool and intent triggers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names the resource (YouTube video posts) and describes an intent-matching trigger list distinguishing this tool from youtube_video and youtube_profiles. However, it makes no mention of the six spider modes other than listing spider_ids, so an agent cannot readily distinguish between youtube_video_post and youtube_video. The purpose is implied through trigger phrases rather than stated directly.

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 lists trigger verbs (采集、抓取、爬取、获取) and resource contexts (频道视频、搜索视频、话题标签视频) that map loosely to different collectors. But it does not explicitly state which spider_id to use for which trigger, nor does it name sibling alternatives. Usage is implied through keyword matching rather than clear guidance.

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