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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, performance implications, pagination, or any side effects. The only behavioral information appears in the schema parameter for includeExtras, not in the description itself.

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 extremely concise ('Channel Videos'), but this is under-specification rather than efficient brevity. Every word is wasted because it adds no value beyond the tool name. It lacks a leading verb or any context.

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?

This tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides no explanation of the tool's behavior, return format, pagination, or relationship to other endpoints. For a tool with moderate complexity, this is completely inadequate.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no meaning beyond what is in the schema, but the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., includeExtras explaining like/comment counts and alternative endpoints) already provide adequate semantics. The tool description does not compensate further, but also does not detract.

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 'Channel Videos' is a noun phrase, not a verb phrase indicating an action. It merely restates the tool name without specifying what the tool does (e.g., retrieves, lists, scrapes). It provides no distinction from sibling tools like scrapecreators_channel_shorts or scrapecreators_video_info.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is entirely silent on usage context.

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