Get YouTube OAuth URL

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining that the URL is for user authorization, clarifying the tool's role in the OAuth process. However, it doesn't detail behavioral aspects like rate limits or error handling, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the tool's function and its purpose in the authorization flow. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and its role in OAuth, but could benefit from mentioning the relationship to sibling auth tools or what happens after authorization for better context.

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 has no parameters (parameter count: 0), with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is unnecessary here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the lack of parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get the OAuth authorization URL' specifies the verb (get) and resource (URL), and 'User needs to visit this URL to authorize the app' explains its role in the OAuth flow. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'youtube_checkAuth' or 'youtube_startAuth', which appear related to authentication but have different functions.

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 implies usage context by stating 'User needs to visit this URL to authorize the app', suggesting this tool is for initiating OAuth authorization. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'youtube_startAuth' or 'youtube_checkAuth', and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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