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. It adds valuable context about quota cost (2 units), which isn't in the schema, but doesn't mention other important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the response format looks like. The description provides some behavioral insight but leaves significant gaps.

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 at just two short sentences, with the core purpose stated first and operational detail (quota cost) following. Every word earns its place, though some might argue it's too brief given the lack of other context. The structure is front-loaded with the main function.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It mentions quota cost but omits crucial context about response format, error conditions, authentication requirements, and how this tool differs from the many channel-related siblings. For a tool with moderate complexity and no structured metadata, the description should provide more operational guidance.

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 no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about how parameters interact or typical usage patterns.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'channel details', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other channel-related siblings like 'channel_details' or 'channel_metadata' (if they existed), though among the actual siblings listed, it's distinct as the only general channel info 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'channel_videos', 'channel_playlists', and 'channel_community_posts', there's no indication that this tool is for general metadata while others are for specific content types. The quota cost mention is operational but not usage guidance.

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. It adds useful context about quota cost ('Quota cost is 1 unit'), which isn't in the schema, but lacks other critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This partial disclosure is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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—two short sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently adds quota information, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output structure, error cases, pagination behavior (implied by 'token' but not explained), and how results differ from siblings. The quota cost is helpful, but overall, it doesn't provide enough context for reliable 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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between 'id' and other fields or default behaviors. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get community post listing and channel details'), identifying both primary resources. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'channel_videos' or 'post_details', which might handle similar content, leaving some ambiguity about its unique scope.

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 many sibling tools (e.g., 'channel_videos', 'post_details', 'comments'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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. It discloses quota cost (1 unit) and hints at additional costs for some parameters, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover other critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'featured' means operationally. The description adds some transparency but leaves gaps for a tool with 7 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?

The description is extremely concise—just two sentences that directly state the purpose and quota cost. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without 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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and quota costs but lacks details on output format, error cases, or usage context. For a tool that likely returns structured data (featured channels), more guidance on what to expect would be helpful, though the high schema coverage mitigates some gaps.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'id' and 'forUsername' interact or what 'featured channel listing' entails). Baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra semantic context.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get featured channel listing and channel details.' It specifies both the action (get) and the resources (featured channel listing, channel details). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'about_channel' or 'channel_home', which might also provide channel information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 mentions quota cost, but doesn't specify scenarios like 'use this for discovering popular channels' or contrast it with siblings such as 'channel_videos' or 'search_channels_videosplaylists'. Without such context, the agent lacks direction on appropriate usage.

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. It helpfully mentions quota cost (1 unit) and implies additional costs for certain parameters, which is valuable operational context. However, it doesn't describe what 'Home Tab Listings' actually contains, whether results are paginated, or what authentication might be required.

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 - a single sentence that communicates the core purpose and includes important operational information (quota cost). Every word earns its place with zero wasted text, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read operation with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and quota information but lacks details about what 'Home Tab Listings' actually returns, how pagination works (despite token parameters), or how this differs from similar tools. With no annotations and no output schema, more context would be helpful for proper tool selection and usage.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to since the schema coverage is complete. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Channel's Home Tab Listings'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its many siblings (like home_feed or channel_videos), which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.

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 30+ sibling tools including home_feed and various channel-specific tools, the agent receives no help in selecting this specific tool for retrieving home tab listings over other 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?

The description adds one key behavioral detail: 'Quota cost is 1 unit.' Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it doesn't mention other important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (especially critical with no output 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?

The description is extremely concise - just two sentences that directly state the purpose and quota cost. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential 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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the return data looks like, how pagination works (despite having token parameters), or important behavioral constraints. The quota cost mention is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing context needed 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get live stream listing and channel details.' It specifies both the resource (live streams and channel details) and the action (get/retrieve). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'channel_videos' or 'channel_playlists' beyond the focus on live streams.

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 many sibling tools available (e.g., channel_videos, channel_playlists, search), there's no indication of when this specific live stream retrieval is appropriate versus other content types or search methods.

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. It mentions 'Quota cost is 2 unit' and notes additional costs for some parameters, which is useful for resource management. However, it fails to describe critical behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like, or any error conditions, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 7 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the purpose and quota cost without unnecessary details. It's front-loaded with the core function, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes. Overall, it's concise and to the point.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavioral traits beyond quota costs. For a tool that likely returns structured data like livestreams and channel details, more context is needed to guide effective 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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value by noting quota costs for 'forUsername' and 'local', but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get livestreams listing along with channel details.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('livestreams listing' and 'channel details'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'channel_livestreams' or 'channel_videos', which is why it doesn't achieve a perfect score.

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 mentions quota costs but doesn't explain why one would choose this over similar tools like 'channel_livestreams' or how it differs in functionality. Without such context, the agent lacks clear usage directives.

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. It adds one important behavioral trait: 'Quota cost is 1 unit.' However, it doesn't mention other critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), rate limits beyond quota, authentication requirements, or what happens with the 'X-CACHEBYPASS' parameter that increases quota cost.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second provides important operational information about quota cost. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (8 parameters, 1 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and mentions quota cost, but doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how results are structured. For a tool with this many parameters and no output schema, more context would be helpful.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get playlist listing and channel details.' It specifies both resources (playlists and channel details) and the action (get/retrieve). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'channel_videos' or 'channel_home' that might also retrieve channel-related information.

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 many sibling tools like 'channel_videos', 'channel_home', and 'playlist', there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it's the appropriate choice. The quota cost mention is operational, not usage guidance.

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. It mentions 'Quota cost is 1 unit', which adds useful operational context. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by 'token' but not explained), rate limits beyond quota, error handling, or what 'shorts listing' and 'channel details' entail in the response. For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence: 'Get shorts listing along with channel details Quota cost is 1 unit.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes operational info. However, it could be slightly improved with punctuation for clarity (e.g., a period before 'Quota'), but overall it's concise with zero waste.

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 (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values (what 'shorts listing' and 'channel details' include), pagination behavior, or how to handle the many optional parameters effectively. For a data retrieval tool with rich inputs, more context is needed to guide proper usage.

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 thoroughly with examples and quota implications. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., 'id' vs 'forUsername'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get shorts listing along with channel details'. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('shorts listing' and 'channel details'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'shorts_details' or 'channel_shorts_via_post', which would require more specific scope or method 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'shorts_details', 'channel_shorts_via_post', and 'channel_videos', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or comparative use cases. The quota cost mention is operational but doesn't guide 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal quota costs (2 units base, +1 for certain parameters), which is valuable operational context. However, it doesn't disclose other important behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, rate limits beyond quota costs, pagination behavior beyond the token parameter, or what the response format looks like.

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 appropriately concise - a single sentence that states the purpose and includes quota cost information. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the quota information or adding brief usage 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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the relationship between 'id' and 'forUsername' parameters, doesn't clarify what 'via_post' means in the tool name, doesn't describe the response format, and provides minimal behavioral context beyond quota costs. Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, the description should do more to help an agent understand how 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning quota cost implications for 'forUsername' and 'local' parameters. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't add meaningful value beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get shorts listing along with channel details' - this specifies both the resource (shorts listing, channel details) and the action (get). It distinguishes from siblings like 'channel_shorts' (similar but likely different implementation) and 'shorts_details' (details only, not listing). However, it doesn't fully explain how it differs from 'channel_shorts' beyond the 'via_post' naming.

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 many sibling tools available (like 'channel_shorts', 'shorts_details', 'channel_videos_via_post'), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate versus those other options. The only usage-related information is about quota costs, not 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It helpfully mentions quota costs (1 unit for basic call, +1 for certain parameters), which is valuable operational context. However, it doesn't address other important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like.

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 appropriately concise with just two sentences that communicate essential information. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides important quota information. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for optimal front-loading.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides some important context (quota costs) but leaves significant gaps. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or provide complete behavioral guidance. For a tool with this complexity and no structured metadata, the description should do more to compensate.

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, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter 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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get store product listing and channel details' which specifies both the action (get) and resources (store product listing, channel details). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'channel_home' or 'channel_details' (if they exist), which would be needed for a perfect score.

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. While it mentions quota costs, it doesn't explain when this specific tool is appropriate compared to other channel-related tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent without contextual 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about quota costs ('Quota cost is 1 unit'), which isn't in the schema. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the return format looks like (especially since there's no output 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?

The description is extremely concise—just two sentences that directly state the purpose and quota cost. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential 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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and quota cost but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or usage context. However, the high schema coverage mitigates some gaps, making it minimally adequate but with clear room for improvement.

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 9 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain interactions between parameters like 'id' and 'forUsername'). 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get channel video listing and channel details.' It specifies both the resource (channel videos and details) and the action (get/retrieve). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'channel_videos_via_post' or 'channel_home,' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 mentions a quota cost but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings like 'channel_videos_via_post' or 'search_channels_videosplaylists.' No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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. It adds some context: it mentions quota costs (2 units base, +1 for 'forUsername' and 'local'), which is useful for resource management. However, it lacks details on pagination behavior (implied by 'token' but not explained), error handling, or response format. The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first sentence and adds quota information in the second. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from behavioral details.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and quota costs but lacks details on output format, error cases, or usage context. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at what's returned (e.g., 'videos listing' implies a list, but structure is unspecified). It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it only mentions quota costs for some parameters, which is behavioral context, not parameter meaning. With high 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get videos listing along with channel details.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resources ('videos listing' and 'channel details'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'channel_videos' or 'channel_home', which might offer similar functionality.

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 mentions 'Quota cost is 2 unit' and additional costs for some parameters, but this is about resource usage, not contextual appropriateness. There's no mention of prerequisites, comparisons to sibling tools, or scenarios where this tool is preferred 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 carries the full burden. It discloses quota cost (1 unit) and hints at pagination via 'token', which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., comment structure, pagination behavior). The description doesn't contradict annotations (none provided).

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by quota information. It wastes no words, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from behavioral notes). Overall, it's efficient but not perfectly optimized.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and quota cost but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, more context on behavior and results would improve completeness.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'id' further or provide examples for 'sort_by'). Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get video's or shorts' comments/thread.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('comments/thread'), and distinguishes the target (videos/shorts) from other content types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'post_comments' or 'channel_community_posts', which might handle comments for different content types.

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 mentions quota cost but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over similar tools like 'post_comments' or in what context it should be invoked. No exclusions or prerequisites 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions quota cost (1 unit) and implies additional cost for cache bypass, which adds some context. However, it lacks details on what 'convert' and 'download' entail, whether this is a read/write operation, error handling, or output format. The behavioral traits are under-specified for a tool with multiple actions.

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 two sentences but could be more front-loaded; the first sentence is a list of actions without clear structure, and the second mixes endpoint guidance with quota info. It's somewhat concise but not optimally structured for quick understanding.

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 (multiple actions: convert, translate, download), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how the actions interrelate, or provide full behavioral context. More detail is needed for adequate completeness.

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 thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 states the tool performs three actions (convert, translate, download subtitle), which gives a general purpose. However, it doesn't specify what resources it operates on beyond 'subtitle' or how it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'subtitles' or 'transcript'. The purpose is somewhat vague rather than specific.

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 clear context on when to use this tool by specifying that the subtitle URL should be obtained from 'Video -> Subtitles' or 'Video -> Details' endpoints. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for usage.

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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It usefully mentions quota cost (1 unit) which is valuable operational context. However, it doesn't describe what 'stream or download info' actually returns (formats, data structure, whether it's actual media or metadata), rate limits beyond quota, or error conditions like the 403 mentioned in the schema. It adds some value but leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 (two brief sentences) with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core function and follows with important quota information. However, the extreme brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness, which is reflected in other dimension scores.

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 inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool actually returns (streaming links? download URLs? metadata?), doesn't differentiate it from similar sibling tools, and provides minimal behavioral context beyond quota cost. Given the complexity of YouTube content access and the rich sibling tool ecosystem, this description leaves too many questions unanswered.

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 fully documents all three parameters (id, cgeo, lang). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 'Stream or download info' is vague and tautological with the tool name 'downloadstream'. It doesn't specify what type of content is being streamed/downloaded (YouTube videos/shorts) or what 'info' refers to. While the input schema reveals this is for YouTube content, the description itself lacks the specific verb+resource clarity needed for independent understanding.

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 the many sibling tools available (like video_details, shorts_details, channel_videos, etc.). It mentions quota cost but doesn't explain why one would choose this tool over alternatives for similar YouTube content access. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references are provided.

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. It adds value by mentioning quota cost (1 unit, with an extra cost for cache bypass), which is crucial for usage planning. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior (beyond token parameters), or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with 8 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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the purpose and quota cost. Every sentence earns its place with essential information, and there's no wasted text or redundancy, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and quota but misses behavioral details like pagination mechanics, response format, or error cases. While concise, it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving the agent with insufficient context for robust 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify 'params' or provide examples for 'type'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get videos or Shorts listings related to any hashtag.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('videos or Shorts listings'), and distinguishes the scope by mentioning hashtag-based retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search' or 'trending' that might also retrieve videos, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 mentions quota cost, but doesn't compare to sibling tools like 'search' (which might handle broader queries) or 'trending' (which might show popular content without hashtags). Without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, the agent lacks context for 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses quota cost (1 unit) and implies pagination via token parameters, adding some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'home feeds' entail (e.g., content format, update frequency), leaving gaps for a read operation.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by quota information. It avoids redundancy but could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from behavioral notes.

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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete: it states the action and quota cost but lacks details on output format, error cases, or sibling differentiation. Given the 5 parameters and absence of structured behavioral hints, it should provide more context about what 'home feeds' returns and usage scenarios.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying pagination and region/niche filtering, which the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states the action ('Get home feeds') and scope ('region-wise & niche-wise'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on channels, videos, or search. However, it doesn't specify what a 'home feed' contains (e.g., content types) or how 'niche-wise' differs from region filtering, leaving some ambiguity.

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 like 'search', 'trending', or channel-specific tools. The description mentions quota cost but doesn't explain use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons with siblings, offering minimal contextual direction.

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. It effectively reveals key operational traits: it's a mutation tool (implied by 'Update'), has quota implications ('Quota Cost +1'), and is designed for YouTube videos. It doesn't cover error handling or response format, but provides more than basic functional description.

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 with just three short phrases that each add distinct value: the core function, a usage hint, and a quota warning. There's zero wasted language, and the most critical information (the update action) is front-loaded, making it highly efficient.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers what the tool does and includes important operational details (quota cost, YouTube focus), but doesn't explain what the update actually achieves or what the response contains, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 parameter 'id' is fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the specific fields being updated ('viewCount, likeCount'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the focus on YouTube video metadata distinguishes it from other tools like 'channel_videos' or '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 some usage context by mentioning 'Useful for Live videos', which implies a specific scenario for this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites, leaving the guidance somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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. It adds value by mentioning 'Quota cost is 1 unit,' which informs about resource usage. However, it lacks details on other behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what happens with pagination (implied by 'token' parameters). This partial disclosure is adequate but incomplete.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences: one stating the purpose and another providing quota information. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers purpose and quota cost, but lacks details on output format, pagination behavior, and error handling. Without an output schema, the agent is left uncertain about return values. This makes it minimally viable but not fully comprehensive.

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, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameter interactions, defaults, or usage nuances. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, which is appropriate 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get playlist details and video listing.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('playlist details and video listing'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'channel_playlists' or 'related_videos_or_playlists', which might also involve playlists, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 mentions a quota cost, but does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'channel_playlists' or 'related_videos_or_playlists'. This lack of usage context leaves the agent without clear direction for 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. It discloses a quota cost (1 unit) and hints at additional costs for cache bypass, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., comment structure).

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes quota information. It avoids redundancy, but could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from behavioral notes.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and quota costs but misses details on output format, error cases, and usage context. For a tool with this complexity, it should provide more guidance to be fully adequate.

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 fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'post' context for 'id' and 'channelId.' This meets the baseline of 3, as 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get post's comments or thread.' It specifies the action (get) and resource (post's comments/thread). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'comments' or 'post_details' beyond mentioning 'post's comments,' which is somewhat specific but not explicitly contrasted.

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 mentions a quota cost, but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'comments' or 'post_details.' This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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. It explicitly states 'Quota cost is 1 unit' which is valuable operational context not available elsewhere. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format/details are returned in the response.

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 with just two short sentences that both add value. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides important quota information. There's zero wasted text 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 read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and quota information but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what 'post' means in this system, what details are returned, or how this differs from similar tools. The quota cost information is helpful, but more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no 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 states 'Get post details' which clearly indicates a read operation on a post resource, but it doesn't specify what kind of post or what details are retrieved. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'post_comments' or 'shorts_details' which might also retrieve post-related information.

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 many sibling tools available (like 'video_details', 'shorts_details', 'post_comments'), there's no indication whether this is for regular posts, community posts, or other types, nor any prerequisites or context for 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. However, it reveals nothing about the tool's behavior—no information on rate limits, authentication needs, response format, error conditions, or side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, leaving critical operational traits unspecified.

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 a single phrase with no structure or front-loading of key information. While brief, it fails to convey essential details, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise. Every word should earn its place, but here the words add minimal value.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema) and the rich sibling toolset, the description is incomplete. It lacks purpose differentiation, usage guidelines, behavioral context, and output expectations, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer tool functionality. This is insufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly (e.g., 'query' with an example, 'geo' with ISO codes, 'lang' for locale, 'X-CACHEBYPASS' with quota implications). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, but the high coverage justifies the baseline score of 3, as 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 'Query Suggestion / Auto-Completion' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It indicates the general domain (query suggestions) but lacks specific verbs, resources, or scope details that would distinguish it from sibling tools like 'search' or 'resolve_url'. The purpose remains vague without concrete operational context.

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, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., how it differs from 'search' or 'resolve_url'). This leaves the agent with no basis for selecting this tool appropriately in different scenarios.

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. It mentions 'Quota cost is 1 unit,' which adds useful context about resource usage. However, it lacks details on other behavioral traits, such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (since there's no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with multiple 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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly state the purpose and quota cost. There is no wasted verbiage, and every sentence adds value, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and usage guidelines. While it mentions quota cost, this is insufficient for a tool that retrieves related content with multiple input options, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about how to effectively use it.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description does not add any semantic details about the parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'id' relates to videos or playlists, or clarify the interaction between 'token' and 'X-TOKEN'). Thus, it meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema handles 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get related videos or playlists.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('related videos or playlists'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'search' or 'video_details', which might also retrieve video-related content, so it misses the highest score.

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 many sibling tools available (e.g., 'search', 'video_details', 'playlist'), there is no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for using this tool. The mention of 'Quota cost is 1 unit' hints at resource usage but does not inform 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. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Quota cost is 1 unit,' which informs about rate limits or resource consumption—valuable context not in the schema. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like error handling, performance, or what 'resolve' entails (e.g., returns expanded URL, status code). The description adds meaningful context but could be more comprehensive.

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—two short sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the purpose and includes essential behavioral context (quota cost). Every sentence earns its place by adding value, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 2 parameters with full schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and quota cost but lacks details on what 'resolve' means operationally, expected outputs, or error cases. For a tool with no output schema, more clarity on return values would improve completeness, but it's adequate as a minimum viable 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 both parameters ('url' and 'X-CACHEBYPASS') with examples and notes. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. According to rules, with high coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param details 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 states the tool 'Resolve URLs like handles, etc.' which provides a general purpose (resolving URLs) but is vague about what 'resolve' means operationally (e.g., expand short URLs, validate links, fetch metadata) and doesn't specify the resource or outcome. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'video_details' or 'search', which might also process URLs. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 'video_details', 'channel_videos', and 'search' that might handle URL-related tasks, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The mention of 'Quota cost is 1 unit' hints at resource usage but doesn't inform tool selection decisions.

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. It discloses the quota cost ('Quota Cost +4'), which is valuable behavioral context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output specifics, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey core functionality and quota cost. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for a simple tool with full schema coverage. It covers the basic action and quota cost but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration context, which could be helpful for an agent.

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 parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Youtube video id', 'Format must be HH:MM:SS'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without compensating 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 clearly states the action ('Get screenshot') and format ('JPG format'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'video_details' or 'downloadstream' that might also handle YouTube content, though the screenshot-specific function is inherently distinct.

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 many sibling tools for YouTube content (e.g., 'video_details', 'downloadstream'), there's no indication of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving usage context unclear.

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 full burden and does well by disclosing quota cost (2 units) - important operational behavior. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior beyond token parameters, but the quota disclosure is valuable behavioral information.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste - first states purpose, second provides important quota information. Well-structured and appropriately sized for a search tool with many parameters documented elsewhere.

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 complex tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers core purpose and quota cost. Without annotations and with no output schema, it should ideally mention more about response format or pagination, but the quota disclosure helps.

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, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the detailed schema descriptions. It mentions quota cost generally but not how specific parameters affect it.

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 clearly states the tool searches for 'videos, playlists, channels, or all of them', providing a specific verb ('search') and resources. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'search_channels_videosplaylists' by being more general, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all search-related tools.

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 implies usage for general search across multiple content types, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. more specific tools like 'search_channels_videosplaylists' or 'hashtag'. It mentions quota cost which provides some operational context, but lacks explicit guidance on 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions quota cost (1 unit) and implies additional costs for certain parameters, which is valuable. However, it doesn't describe response format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or authentication requirements that would be important 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?

The description is efficiently structured in a single sentence that communicates the core functionality plus quota information. However, it could be more front-loaded by stating the primary purpose more prominently before mentioning quota details.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic functionality and quota implications but lacks information about response format, error handling, and how this tool differs from similar sibling tools in the server.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions, such as explaining relationships between parameters or providing usage examples.

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 clearly states the tool searches a channel's videos and playlists while also retrieving channel details, providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'channel_videos', 'channel_playlists', or 'search', which all handle similar content types.

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 like 'channel_videos', 'channel_playlists', or the general 'search' tool. It mentions quota cost but offers no contextual usage recommendations 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes quota costs (1 unit for video info, 2 units for suggested info, +1 for extend/cache bypass), which is crucial operational context. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format details.

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 reasonably concise but has structural issues. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but the second sentence is repetitive and awkwardly phrased ('Quota cost is 1 unit for Shorts Video Info Quota cost is 2 units for suggested Shorts Video Info'). Some sentences could be more efficiently structured.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and quota information but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what information is returned, how results are structured, error handling, or authentication requirements. The quota cost details are helpful but insufficient for full operational 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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions quota costs for 'extend' and 'X-CACHEBYPASS' parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or usage patterns.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves YouTube Shorts video information or suggested Shorts video information, specifying the verb 'get' and resource 'Shorts video info'. It distinguishes between two modes (specific video vs. suggested videos) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'shorts_sequence' or 'channel_shorts'.

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 implies when to use each mode (by specifying the 'id' parameter options: video ID for specific info or 'WHATTOWATCH' for suggested videos), but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'shorts_sequence' or 'video_details'. No exclusions or prerequisites 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions quota cost (2 units, with potential +1 for cache bypass), which is useful operational context. However, it doesn't describe what 'Shorts sequence' means, what data is returned, whether this is a read-only operation, or any error conditions. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral transparency.

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 at just two sentences with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose statement followed by important operational information about quota cost. Every sentence earns its place, making this highly efficient.

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 inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'Shorts sequence' means, what data structure is returned, or how this tool differs from related shorts tools. The quota cost information is helpful but doesn't compensate for the lack of fundamental context about the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It mentions quota cost implications for the X-CACHEBYPASS parameter, but this is behavioral rather than semantic. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 'Get Shorts sequence' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'shorts_sequence' without providing meaningful context about what a 'Shorts sequence' actually is or what specific action the tool performs. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'shorts_details' or 'channel_shorts' in any meaningful way.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions 'Quota cost is 2 units,' this doesn't help an agent decide between this tool and related tools like 'shorts_details' or 'channel_shorts.' There's no context about what problem this tool solves 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about quota cost (1 unit) and implies pagination via the token parameter, but it doesn't cover other critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like. This is a partial but incomplete effort for a tool with 7 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?

The description is extremely concise—two sentences that directly state the purpose and quota cost. Every word earns its place with zero waste, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. This is a model of efficiency.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and quota but lacks details on output format, error conditions, authentication, and how to interpret results. For a tool with this many parameters and no structured output guidance, more context is needed to be fully helpful to an agent.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between params like 'params' and 'id', or clarify usage of 'X-CACHEBYPASS'). 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the Shorts original sound attribution listing.' It specifies the resource (Shorts original sound attribution) and the action (get/listing). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'shorts_details' or 'shorts_sequence', which prevents a perfect score.

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 mentions a quota cost, but this doesn't help the agent choose between this and sibling tools like 'shorts_details' or 'shorts_sequence' for sound-related queries. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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. It adds value by mentioning 'Quota cost is 1 unit', which informs about resource usage, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's operational behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and efficiently adds quota information in the second, with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters. It covers the basic purpose and quota cost but lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances. This is adequate for a simple read operation but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent.

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 thoroughly. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'list of available subtitles for the video', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'transcript' or 'converttranslatedownload_subtitle', which might also handle subtitle-related operations, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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, such as 'transcript' or 'converttranslatedownload_subtitle', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of context could lead to incorrect tool selection in complex scenarios involving subtitle retrieval.

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. It mentions 'Quota Cost +1', which is useful context about resource consumption, but doesn't cover other important aspects like rate limits, error handling, authentication needs, or what the transcript output looks like (e.g., format, language support). The description adds some value but is incomplete 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?

The description is extremely concise with just two sentences, but the second sentence 'Quota Cost +1' feels tacked on without proper integration. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, but could be more structured. There's no wasted text, but it borders on under-specification rather than elegant 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters. It mentions quota cost but misses critical context like what the transcript output contains, language handling details, cache behavior implications, or how it differs from similar sibling tools. For a data retrieval tool in a YouTube-focused server, this leaves significant gaps.

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 thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the relationship between parameters or provide examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't 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 states 'Get Transcript' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it doesn't specify what type of transcript (YouTube video transcript based on the input schema) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'subtitles' or 'converttranslatedownload_subtitle'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity and sibling differentiation.

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 like 'subtitles' or 'converttranslatedownload_subtitle'. The description only mentions quota cost, which is a behavioral trait, not usage context. There's no indication of prerequisites, limitations, or comparison to sibling 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about quota cost ('Quota cost is 1 unit'), which isn't in the schema, but lacks other critical details like response format, pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and scope, and another providing quota information. It's front-loaded with the core function, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from behavioral notes.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and behavioral complexity. It covers quota cost but misses details on return values, error handling, and usage constraints. However, the high schema coverage partially compensates, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps.

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 thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between 'geo', 'type', and 'lang', or clarifying the 'X-CACHEBYPASS' impact. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the action ('Get trending videos') and specifies the scope ('region-wise & niche-wise'), which distinguishes it from siblings focused on channels, search, or specific content types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'home_feed' or 'related_videos_or_playlists' that might also surface trending-like content.

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 mentions 'region-wise & niche-wise' but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over other discovery tools like 'search', 'home_feed', or 'related_videos_or_playlists', nor does it mention 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about quota costs (1 unit base, with additional costs for multi-id requests and extend options), which isn't in the schema. However, it lacks details on error handling, response format, or performance implications, leaving gaps for a tool with 5 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?

The description is extremely concise—a single sentence that efficiently states the purpose and includes critical quota cost information. It's front-loaded with the core function and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers quota costs but misses behavioral aspects like response structure, error cases, or prerequisites. For a tool with rich input options and no output schema, more context would be helpful to guide effective usage.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify parameter interactions or usage examples), resulting in a 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all the details of the YouTube video'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'shorts_details' or 'metadata_update', which might also retrieve video information in different contexts.

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 like 'shorts_details' for shorts videos or 'metadata_update' for updates. It mentions quota costs but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over other video-related tools in the sibling list.

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