channel_shorts_via_post

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.