videos

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 genuinely useful traits beyond that: the sort order (newest to oldest) and that Shorts are included. It does not address pagination, quota/rate limits, or what happens at the 200 limit boundary.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence leading with the resource and ordering, followed by a compact colon list of returned fields. No filler, though the field enumeration is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists.

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 read-only listing tool, an output schema covers return values and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description is nearly complete. The remaining gap is the absence of any routing guidance relative to sibling tools like 'channel' or 'analytics'.

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% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema (including the default of 20), so the description need not restate it. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline here.

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 states a specific resource and scope: recent channel uploads including Shorts, ordered newest-to-oldest, with an explicit enumeration of the returned fields. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like 'channel' or 'analytics', but the resource is 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among siblings such as 'analytics' or 'comments'. The use case (browse recent uploads) is only implied by the content described, which meets the 'implied usage' bar but no more.

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