Get playlist videos

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

The description adds a useful non-schema behavior: '1 quota unit per 50', which informs agents about cost per result. It also states ordering behavior. Since annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, the description does not need to repeat those.

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: one short phrase stating the result and one clause giving the quota cost. There is no wasted text and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the core return value and cost. However, it omits parameter details and any guidance distinguishing it from related siblings, leaving an agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not explain playlist_id or max_results semantics. The word 'playlist' makes playlist_id inferable, and 'per 50' hints at max_results, but no explicit parameter meaning or value guidance is provided.

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 identifies the resource ('playlist') and the result ('videos, in order'), and the title adds the 'get' verb. It is easy to tell this tool from generic tools like search or get_channel, though it does not explicitly contrast with list_channel_videos.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as list_channel_videos, get_videos, or search. The purpose implies use for playlist videos, but no exclusions or selection criteria are given.

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