video_list_related

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no pagination, result count, rate-limit, or auth behavior. The type/videoId distinction is parameter semantics rather than behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is terse to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with 0% schema coverage on three parameters, no required-parameter guidance, and no usage context, an agent still lacks what it needs to invoke this correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it only partially compensates. It clarifies `type` by contrasting "videoId" (main) and "detailVideoId" (detail), but says nothing about what `video_id` accepts or what `account_key` is for, leaving two of three parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: list product ids related to a video. An agent can tell what it returns. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling video_relate_product (the likely write counterpart) or from video_query, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus video_query or video_relate_product, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual hint is the parenthetical explaining which id the two `type` values refer to, which is parameter detail rather than usage guidance.

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