Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds only the word 'Resolve' as a behavioral hint, but does not explain what input forms are accepted or what 'resolve' entails. No contradiction exists, but the description contributes little beyond the annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the operation and resource. It contains no filler, but it is so terse that it omits important usage and parameter context, making it concise at the expense of completeness.

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?

The tool has two parameters, one required, and the description does not sufficiently explain either. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, but the lack of parameter semantics is a notable gap. Given the absence of an output schema and a low-complexity tool, the description should have at least clarified what 'Resolve' means and how to specify the channel.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain what the 'channel' parameter accepts (ID, handle, URL, etc.) or what the 'select' parameter controls. With zero coverage and no compensating description, this is a major gap for an agent trying to call the tool correctly.

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 states a specific verb ('Resolve and get') and resource ('one YouTube channel profile'), clearly indicating this tool fetches a single channel. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by resource type (channel vs video/playlist/search). The term 'Resolve' is slightly ambiguous but generally signals that the channel can be identified in multiple forms.

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 conveys that this tool is for retrieving one YouTube channel, which is a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly address when to use this instead of youtube_search, youtube_video_get, or youtube_playlist_get, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites for resolving a channel.

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

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavior about returning either metadata or a signed page of playlist items, but does not clarify pagination behavior, response shape, or any special requirements around the 'signed page' concept.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words and front-loads the core purpose. Minor ambiguity around 'signed page' prevents a perfect score, but the overall structure is efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return behavior; it does broadly say what the tool returns. However, it does not describe the response format, cursor usage, or how include_items changes the result, leaving some gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only hints at include_items through the metadata-versus-items distinction and does not explain the playlist identifier, cursor, or limit semantics. This is insufficient for four parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves playlist data, either metadata or a page of playlist items. The playlist resource orientation distinguishes it from sibling tools for videos, channels, and search, though the phrase 'one signed page' is slightly ambiguous.

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?

Usage context is implied through the resource name and sibling tool names: use this when you need playlist metadata or items rather than video/channel/search data. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when to set include_items versus use pagination.

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

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context such as pagination behavior, result shape, or how multiple scopes interact, so it contributes little beyond the annotations.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and the main modes of operation, earning its place without redundancy.

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 seven parameters, multiple scope modes, nested schema structures, and no output schema, the one-line description is too sparse. It omits details about pagination, locale handling, the meaning of 'within' in transcript/channel scopes, and what a search result contains, leaving the agent under-informed for complex calls.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for seven undocumented parameters. It only hints at scope-related parameters ('within a channel or transcript', 'get trending videos') and says nothing about query, limit, cursor, locale, or filters. This is insufficient parameter guidance.

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 states a specific action ('Search') on a clear resource (YouTube) and enumerates the distinct modes: global, within a channel, within a transcript, or trending videos. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch a single video, channel, or playlist.

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 implies the tool is for searching rather than retrieving known entities, and the scope enum adds mode context, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over youtube_video_get, youtube_channel_get, or youtube_playlist_get. No exclusions or alternative-selection guidance are provided.

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

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description is consistent with those annotations but adds little behavioral detail beyond the three views; it does not mention pagination, cursor usage, rate limits, or other operational behaviors.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

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 seven parameters, a nested options object, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain how the views differ operationally, what cursor-based pagination means, how limit and max_chars apply, or what values video should take.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for seven undocumented parameters. It only loosely maps to the 'view' parameter by naming metadata, transcript, and comments, while leaving video ID format, limit, cursor, locale, options, and max_chars unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one video's metadata, transcript page, or comments page'), clearly identifying what the tool operates on. It also differs from sibling tools by restricting scope to a single video rather than search results, channels, or playlists.

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 implies usage for a specific video when metadata, transcript, or comments are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over youtube_search, youtube_channel_get, or youtube_playlist_get. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance, only the resource scope.

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