Get the library

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: a 50-item cap, snapshot cadence (twice a day), the fact that counts are not live from YouTube, that history begins at channel connection and is bounded by the plan's window. These constraints materially affect how an agent should interpret the numbers, and nothing contradicts the readOnly/openWorld hints.

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?

Front-loaded with what is listed and in what order, then the per-line contents, then the caveats. It runs several clauses long, but each clause carries a distinct fact (order, fields, snapshot provenance, history limits) rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-format burden and does so: it explains each line contains views, seven-day gain (with the short-history caveat), and the video_id. Combined with the snapshot/history provenance notes, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100% – both 'kind' and 'limit' are fully documented with their defaults and the enum. The description only restates the 50-item maximum already present in the limit field, adding no new filtering or formatting semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource precisely ('Published videos, most recent first'), which separates it from siblings like runsheet_get_watchlist and runsheet_get_schedule. The verb is implicit (the title's 'Get'), but the scope and ordering are concrete enough for an agent to know what it returns.

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 only implied: it notes the output includes 'the video_id that the write tools take' and that it is read only, which hints at a read-then-write workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no sibling named as an alternative, so the agent must infer routing.

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