related_videos_or_playlists

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.