v1_youtube_channel_shorts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds a cost of 1 credit and a safety warning about API responses being data-only. However, it does not disclose pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or the typical response structure. Some behavioral context is provided, but gaps remain.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence provides distinct value: purpose, endpoint/cost, requirement, and safety warning. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is low-complexity with only three parameters and no output schema. The description adequately covers input requirements and adds a safety note, but it lacks any description of the return format (e.g., list of shorts, fields included). For a fetching tool, knowledge of the response shape would improve completeness.

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% with each parameter already noted as part of an 'any-of' group. The tool description adds explicit phrasing that at least one of the three identifiers is required, which slightly clarifies the constraint. However, it does not elaborate on format or usage examples 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a YouTube channel's shorts'), specifying the endpoint and cost. While the name already implies the distinction from sibling tools like v1_youtube_channel_videos, the description does not explicitly contrast with these alternatives.

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 mentions that one of handle, channelId, or url is required, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus similar siblings (e.g., v1_youtube_channel_videos, v1_youtube_channel_lives). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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