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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Auto Complete' gives no information about what the tool actually does - whether it returns search suggestions, completes partial queries, or something else. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or what kind of data it returns.

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?

While technically concise with just two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to communicate essential information and doesn't earn its place as a helpful tool description.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, or how it differs from similar tools in the sibling list. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (q, hl, gl) with their types and basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3.

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 'Auto Complete' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without explaining what it does. It doesn't specify what resource it operates on, what action it performs, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'search' or 'channel_search'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'search' and 'channel_search' available, there's no indication of when auto-complete functionality is appropriate versus performing a full search.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description 'Channel Channels' reveals nothing about whether this is a read or write operation, what data it returns, whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or any other behavioral characteristics. It's completely opaque.

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?

While technically concise with just two words, this is a case of under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to communicate essential information, making it inefficient for the agent's understanding despite its short length.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description 'Channel Channels' is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, what it returns, or how to use it properly, leaving the agent with insufficient information to effectively invoke this tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all 5 parameters documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional semantic context about parameters beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate schema coverage without adding value.

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 Channels' is a tautology that merely repeats the tool name without specifying what action it performs or what resource it operates on. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like channel_details, channel_search, or channel_videos, leaving the agent completely uncertain about its function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like channel_search (for searching channels), channel_details (for channel metadata), and channel_videos (for channel videos), there's no indication of what specific purpose 'channel_channels' serves or when it's the appropriate choice.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it adds no information about what the tool does (e.g., whether it reads, writes, or modifies data), its effects, permissions required, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves the agent with no insight into the tool's behavior beyond the input schema.

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?

While the description is extremely concise with just two words, this brevity results in under-specification rather than effective communication. It fails to convey essential information, making it inefficient for the agent's understanding. A more structured approach with a clear purpose statement would be necessary for true conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity implied by having parameters and sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. With no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, it fails to provide enough context for the agent to understand the tool's role, behavior, or how to use it effectively. This leaves significant gaps in usability.

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%, with both parameters ('id' and 'cursor') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context about these parameters, such as how 'id' relates to channels or what 'cursor' is used for. Since the schema provides full coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate 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 Community' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful information about what the tool actually does. It provides no verb indicating action (e.g., 'get', 'list', 'update') and no specification of what resource or operation is involved, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'channel_details' or 'channel_videos'.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with sibling tools like 'channel_details' and 'community_post_details' present, there is no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be selected over others.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what data it returns, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name.

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?

While concise with only two words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It lacks front-loaded information and fails to convey essential details, making it ineffective despite its brevity. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the presence of similar sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, or how it differs from alternatives, failing to provide necessary context for effective agent use.

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%, with clear documentation for all three parameters (id, hl, gl). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 Details' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what action it performs or what resource it operates on. It provides no verb or functional context, making it impossible to distinguish from sibling tools like 'channel_details_v2' or understand its purpose.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'channel_details_v2' or other channel-related tools (e.g., 'channel_videos', 'channel_playlists'). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely ambiguous.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it offers no information about what the tool does (e.g., read-only vs. mutation), authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. It fails to describe any behavioral traits beyond the minimal name, making it inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.

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 brief ('Channel Details (v2)'), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks essential details like the tool's action or purpose, so it doesn't earn its place as a helpful description. While structured as a simple phrase, it fails to convey meaningful information upfront.

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?

Given the complexity (a tool likely for retrieving channel data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it behaves, or its use cases, leaving critical gaps for the agent to understand and invoke it correctly in context with sibling tools.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately documents the parameters without needing additional explanation in the description.

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 Details (v2)' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name with a version suffix. It doesn't specify what action the tool performs (e.g., 'retrieve', 'fetch', 'get') or what kind of details it provides. While it mentions the resource ('Channel'), it lacks a clear verb and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'channel_details' (without v2).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools (e.g., how it differs from 'channel_details' or when to choose it over 'channel_search'). This leaves the agent with no usage instructions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Channel Playlists' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether it lists, searches, or manages playlists, nor does it describe output format, pagination (though 'cursor' in schema hints at it), rate limits, or authentication needs. The description adds minimal value beyond the name, leaving key behavioral traits undocumented.

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 overly concise to the point of under-specification—it's just two words that restate the name. While brief, it fails to front-load essential information like the tool's action or purpose. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the 'sentence' adds no value, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to use parameters like 'filter' or 'cursor', or differentiate it from siblings. With no output schema and minimal description, users lack context for effective tool invocation, making this inadequate for a multi-parameter tool.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain how 'id', 'filter', or other parameters interact or provide usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's documentation.

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 Playlists' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what action the tool performs (e.g., 'retrieve', 'list', 'fetch') or clarify what resource it operates on beyond the obvious. While it mentions 'playlists', it fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'playlist_details' or 'playlist_videos' that also deal with playlists.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'channel_details' or 'playlist_details' that might handle related functionality. Users are left to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Channel Search' reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's paginated (though cursor parameter suggests it might be), rate limits, or what the response format looks like. This is completely inadequate for a search tool.

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?

While technically concise with just two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to communicate essential information that would help an AI agent understand and use the tool correctly, making it inefficient despite its brevity.

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 search tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool searches for, what it returns, how results are structured, or how it differs from other search/channel tools. The agent would have insufficient context to use this tool effectively.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds zero additional information about parameter semantics, usage patterns, or relationships between parameters. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description contributes nothing beyond what's already in structured fields.

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 Search' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful information about what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being searched (e.g., YouTube channels), what the search returns, or how it differs from the 'search' sibling tool.

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 provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 18 sibling tools including a generic 'search' tool, there's no indication of what makes 'channel_search' distinct or appropriate for specific contexts versus other search or channel-related tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Channel Videos' reveals nothing about whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are needed, whether it's paginated, rate-limited, or has side effects. The description fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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?

While technically concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to communicate essential information and doesn't use its limited space effectively. Every word should earn its place, but 'Channel Videos' provides minimal value beyond the tool name itself.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, or any behavioral characteristics. Given the complexity implied by multiple parameters and sibling tools, this minimal description fails to provide necessary context.

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 all 5 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what action it performs. It doesn't indicate whether this tool lists, retrieves, searches, or manages channel videos, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'channel_details', 'playlist_videos', or 'video_details'.

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 provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to channels and videos (e.g., 'channel_details', 'playlist_videos', 'video_details'), there's no indication of this tool's specific use case, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description offers no information about whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, what the response format looks like, or any rate limits or constraints. It fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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?

While technically concise with just three words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide essential information about the tool's purpose and behavior, making it inefficient despite its brevity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, or how it behaves. Given the complexity implied by having a required cursor parameter, this minimal description leaves critical gaps in understanding.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'cursor' documented as coming from the 'Community Post Details endpoint.' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate schema coverage.

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 'Community Post Comments' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what action the tool performs. It doesn't indicate whether this tool creates, retrieves, updates, or deletes comments, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'community_post_details' or 'video_comments'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'community_post_details' and 'video_comments' available, there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool's purpose or appropriate context for its use.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read operation (likely, given the name), what kind of data it returns, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or any other behavioral characteristics. The description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations, leaving the agent with no understanding of how the tool behaves.

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?

While technically concise (only two words), this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't contain enough information to be useful, so its brevity is a liability rather than a strength. A truly concise description would efficiently convey essential information, but this fails to do so.

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?

Given that this is a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the description is completely inadequate. For a tool that presumably retrieves data about community posts, the description should explain what kind of details are returned, how the tool behaves, and when to use it versus alternatives. The current description provides none of this contextual information needed for an agent to effectively use the tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'Community post ID'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description, which applies here.

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 'Community Post Details' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful information. It doesn't specify what action the tool performs (e.g., 'retrieve details about a community post' or 'fetch metadata for a community post'), nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'community_post_comments' or 'channel_community'. The description fails to provide a clear verb+resource combination that would help an agent understand what the tool actually does.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that might relate to community content (community_post_comments, channel_community), but the description offers no context about when this specific tool is appropriate versus those others. No prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Home' gives no insight into whether this is a read/write operation, what it returns, any side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. It fails to describe any behavioral traits beyond the name.

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?

While extremely brief with a single word, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to convey necessary information, making it inefficient despite its minimal length—it doesn't earn its place by being informative.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no meaningful context about the tool's purpose, behavior, or usage, failing to compensate for the missing structured data and leaving the agent with insufficient information to operate the tool effectively.

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%, providing basic documentation for all three parameters (cursor, hl, gl). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline score of 3 without compensating for or enhancing parameter understanding.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no information about appropriate usage scenarios or how this tool differs from other available options.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Playlist Details' gives no indication of whether this is a read-only operation, what data it returns, whether it requires authentication, or any rate limits. The description fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the vague name.

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?

While technically concise with just two words, this is a case of under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to convey essential information about the tool's purpose or usage, making it inefficient despite its short length.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description 'Playlist Details' is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or what information will be returned, leaving critical gaps in understanding.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (id, hl, gl) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, relationships, or examples beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Playlist Details' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what action the tool performs. It doesn't indicate whether this retrieves, displays, analyzes, or modifies playlist details, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'playlist_videos' or 'channel_playlists'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any specific context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'playlist_videos' (which might show videos within playlists) or 'channel_playlists' (which might list playlists by channel).

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Playlist Videos' reveals nothing about whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's paginated (though the cursor parameter suggests it might be), or what kind of response to expect. This is completely inadequate for a tool with 4 parameters.

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?

While technically concise with only two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to convey essential information about the tool's purpose or behavior, making it inefficient despite its short length.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool actually does, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or how parameters interact. This fails to meet even minimum requirements for contextual understanding.

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 the schema already documents all parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic context about parameter usage, relationships, or constraints beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema coverage without description enhancement.

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 'Playlist Videos' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without specifying what action it performs. It doesn't indicate whether this tool retrieves, lists, creates, or modifies playlist videos, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'playlist_details' or 'channel_playlists'.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'playlist_details' and 'channel_playlists' available, there's no indication of what differentiates this tool's functionality or appropriate use cases.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search' gives no indication of whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's paginated (though cursor parameter suggests it might be), what format results are returned in, or any rate limits. The description provides zero behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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?

While 'Search' is certainly concise, this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. A single word description fails to communicate essential information that would help an AI agent use the tool correctly. The description doesn't earn its place by providing any value beyond the tool name.

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 search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what's being searched, how results are structured, when to use this versus other search tools, or any behavioral characteristics. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic information about the parameters beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone, though the description contributes nothing.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that appear to perform various types of searches (channel_search, video_related_contents, etc.), the description fails to indicate what makes this 'search' tool distinct or appropriate for specific contexts.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Trending' gives no information about what the tool does operationally—whether it fetches, lists, or displays data, its safety profile, rate limits, or response format. This leaves the agent with no actionable understanding.

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?

While concise with a single word, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to convey necessary information, making it inefficient for the agent. It does not earn its place as a helpful description.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about the tool's function, behavior, or output, leaving the agent unable to use it effectively despite the simple parameterless schema.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is acceptable here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully handles the parameter semantics.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'home', 'search', and 'video_related_contents', there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for using 'trending'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Video Comments' reveals nothing about whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's paginated, what format the comments are returned in, or any rate limits. This is completely inadequate for a tool with 4 parameters.

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?

While technically concise with only two words, this is a case of harmful under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide any meaningful information that would help an AI agent understand or use the tool, making it inefficient despite its short length.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description 'Video Comments' is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use it, what it returns, or any behavioral characteristics. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 the schema already documents all 4 parameters with basic descriptions. The tool description adds zero additional information about parameter meaning, relationships, or usage context beyond what's in the schema. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Video Comments' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what action the tool performs. It doesn't indicate whether this tool retrieves, creates, updates, or deletes video comments, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'community_post_comments' or 'video_details'.

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 provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'video_details', 'community_post_comments', and 'video_related_contents' available, there's no indication of what specific video comment functionality this tool provides or when it should be selected over other tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Video Details' reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it makes external API calls, rate limits, error behavior, or what kind of data is returned. This is completely inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

While technically concise with only two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to communicate essential information that would help an AI agent understand and use the tool correctly, making it inefficient despite its short length.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description 'Video Details' is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or how it differs from similar tools, leaving critical gaps for agent understanding.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all three parameters (id, hl, gl) are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value.

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 'Video Details' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without specifying what action is performed. It doesn't indicate whether this retrieves, analyzes, or displays video details, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'video_details_v2' or 'video_streaming_data'.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple video-related sibling tools available (including 'video_details_v2'), there's no indication of the specific use case, prerequisites, or differentiation between this tool and others.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it reveals nothing about the tool's behavior—such as whether it's a read-only operation, what data it returns, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about how the tool operates.

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?

While concise with only three words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes its limited space on a tautological restatement of the name without adding any value. True conciseness balances brevity with usefulness, which this description fails to achieve.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it differs from the sibling 'video_details', or any behavioral aspects. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate by providing essential context, but it offers none, making it inadequate for effective tool use.

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%, meaning the input schema fully documents both parameters (video_id and hl). The description adds no additional semantic context about these parameters, such as explaining their purpose beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without parameter info in the description.

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 'Video Details (v2)' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name with a version suffix. It provides no information about what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieves metadata, statistics, or other details about a video), nor does it differentiate this v2 version from the sibling 'video_details' tool. This fails to communicate any specific action or purpose.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling 'video_details' tool, explain why v2 exists, or provide any context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Users are left with no information to make informed decisions about tool selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it offers zero information about what the tool does, how it behaves, what it returns, or any operational characteristics. The description fails to disclose even basic behavioral traits like whether this is a read operation, what kind of content it retrieves, or any constraints.

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?

While technically concise with only three words, this is an example of harmful under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to communicate essential information, making it inefficient for the agent's understanding. Every word should earn its place, but here the words fail to convey meaningful content.

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?

Given the complexity of a video-related tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what 'related contents' means, or how it differs from other video tools. The agent would be unable to use this tool effectively based on the provided description.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, relationships, or semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation solely from the schema, with no value added by the description.

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 'Video Related Contents' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what action it performs or what resource it operates on. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like video_details, video_comments, or video_streaming_data, leaving the agent with no understanding of what this tool actually does.

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 provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like video_details, video_comments, and video_streaming_data available, the agent has no indication of what specific video-related content this tool retrieves or in what context it should be preferred over other video tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Video Streaming Data' reveals nothing about whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, what format the data is returned in, whether there are rate limits, or any other behavioral characteristics. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about how the tool behaves.

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?

While technically concise with just three words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't front-load essential information and fails to communicate the tool's purpose. Every word should earn its place, but these three words provide almost no useful information.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a completely vague description, this is severely incomplete. The agent cannot understand what the tool does, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or what results it produces. Even with a simple single-parameter schema, the description fails to provide the minimal context needed for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. However, with 100% schema description coverage (the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'Video ID'), the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't compensate for any gaps, but none exist in the schema documentation.

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 'Video Streaming Data' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without specifying what action the tool performs. It doesn't indicate whether this retrieves, analyzes, processes, or manages video streaming data. Compared to sibling tools like 'video_details' or 'video_comments', this description fails to distinguish the tool's specific function.

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 provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple video-related sibling tools (video_details, video_details_v2, video_comments, video_related_contents), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be selected over those other options.

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