shorts_sound_attribution

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 useful context about quota cost (1 unit) and implies pagination via the token parameter, but it doesn't cover other critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like. This is a partial but incomplete effort for a tool with 7 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—two sentences that directly state the purpose and quota cost. Every word earns its place with zero waste, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. This is a model of efficiency.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and quota but lacks details on output format, error conditions, authentication, and how to interpret results. For a tool with this many parameters and no structured output guidance, more context is needed to be fully helpful to an agent.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between params like 'params' and 'id', or clarify usage of 'X-CACHEBYPASS'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does 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 the Shorts original sound attribution listing.' It specifies the resource (Shorts original sound attribution) and the action (get/listing). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'shorts_details' or 'shorts_sequence', which prevents 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 a quota cost, but this doesn't help the agent choose between this and sibling tools like 'shorts_details' or 'shorts_sequence' for sound-related queries. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.