channel_videos_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 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.