YouTube Channel Videos API

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the cost model (2 credits live, 0 on cache hit), the public-data-only boundary, and the fact that fields use this platform's own names. It adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and pagination behavior, then adds cost and scope details. There is slight redundancy between the first and second sentences, both mentioning a 'page' and 'cursor', so it is not perfectly tight.

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 paginated read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly: return shape (items plus nextCursor), cost/cache behavior, and public-data scope. It does not enumerate the item fields, but the note that fields use this platform's own names mitigates that gap.

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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to restate them. It does add useful pagination context by mentioning items plus nextCursor and platform-specific field naming, but it does not add new syntax-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 clear verb ('Returns') and resource ('a page of recent public videos for a YouTube channel'), and the cursor/pagination detail makes the tool's specific role obvious. It is easy to distinguish from the sibling stats, channel, transcript, and platform-specific tools because it is explicitly about public 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?

The description clearly frames the tool for public, read-only video data and explicitly excludes bios, contact details, and login-walled data, giving an agent a good sense of when it is appropriate. It does not name sibling alternatives such as youtube_transcript or youtube_stats, so the guidance is contextual rather than explicitly comparative.

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