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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by naming the returned fields (id, title, published_at, view_count) and the pagination mechanism, which matters because no output schema exists. It stops short of stating default page size, ordering, or result caps.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return shape and pagination. Every sentence carries information the agent needs; there is no filler or redundancy.

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-required-parameter list tool, the description covers what it does, what comes back, and how to page, which compensates for the absence of an output schema. Missing only secondary detail such as result ordering and the default page size behavior at the boundary.

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 page_token, max_results and in_workspace are already fully documented in the schema, including the default of 25 and the 1-50 range. The description only repeats the pagination concept without adding format or edge-case detail, so the 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 a specific verb and resource ('List videos on the connected YouTube channel'), which is clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings like youtube_upload_video or youtube_delete_video. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling youtube_video_query or tiktok_list_videos, leaving the agent to infer which lister applies.

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 only implied: the agent can infer this is the browse/list operation for the channel's videos, and the pagination sentence hints at multi-page iteration. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to youtube_video_query for targeted lookups or to tiktok_list_videos for the other platform.

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