channel_shorts

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.