hashtag

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.