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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses two real behavioral traits: publication dates and descriptions may be missing, and full_details enrichment is capped at 30 videos. These are exactly the caveats an agent needs to set expectations. It does not address the odd readOnlyHint=false annotation or any auth/rate-limit behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 purpose and followed by the two caveats. The 30-video cap is duplicated verbatim from the schema description, which is minor waste but not bloat.

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 burden of describing returns; it hints that dates and descriptions may be absent but never names the fields actually returned (video id, title, url) or how pagination/limit interplay works. Adequate for a simple list tool, but not complete.

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 url, limit, and full_details are already fully documented in the schema, including the 1-100 range and the 30-video cap. The description restates the full_details cap but adds no new parameter semantics, 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?

"List videos from a public YouTube channel or playlist" states a concrete verb and resource, which separates it from siblings like youtube_comments, youtube_channel_stats, and youtube_transcript. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with youtube_search or tiktok_channel_videos, leaving the channel-vs-search distinction to inference.

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 by the phrase "from a public YouTube channel or playlist," which suggests the tool takes a channel/playlist URL rather than a query. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer youtube_search or tiktok_channel_videos, and no prerequisites such as requiring a public channel.

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