youtube_get_channel_videos

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, non-destructive, open-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavior beyond that: nothing about pagination, continuation tokens, rate limits, or whether the limit truncates silently. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is only baseline value-add.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. It loses a point only because the second and third sentences largely repeat schema content (accepted formats and sort values) rather than adding new information.

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 three-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers intent, input formats, and sort options. It omits any note on pagination or how the maximum limit interacts with result retrieval, a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description restates the accepted identifier forms (@handle, URL, ID) and sort orders, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List videos from a YouTube channel'), which is clearly distinct from youtube_get_channel_info, youtube_search, and youtube_get_playlist. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so sibling differentiation relies on the agent's own inference.

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 is implied by the verb and resource, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as youtube_search for keyword-based discovery or youtube_get_channel_info for metadata. Adequate but leaves selection entirely to inference.

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