youtube_get_playlist

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it states the tool is keyless, returns playlist metadata plus ordered video records, results are bounded by limit, and failures occur for private/unavailable/blocked playlists. This fully complements the annotation set.

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 sentences cover the core action, usage boundaries, and failure modes without any redundant phrasing. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Given the small parameter count, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: input requirement (known playlist URL), return content (playlist metadata + ordered videos), execution bound (limit), and likely failure conditions. It is complete for this simple tool.

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% for both parameters, so the description is not required to add much. It reinforces the meaning of `limit` ('up to `limit` videos') but does not introduce new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already says.

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 ('List') and resource ('videos from a known YouTube playlist URL') and scopes the operation ('up to `limit` videos in upstream order'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling alternatives by stating 'not channel uploads or keyword search', making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for playlist contents, not channel uploads or keyword search.' This identifies the appropriate context and excludes alternatives, though it does not name specific sibling tools as in the highest-caliber examples.

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