YouTube Privacy Audit

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the exact data returned (OAuth scope, safety boundaries), which is beyond the generic read-only indication. It does not contradict annotations, and the added context helps the agent understand the output nature, though it could mention any special requirements like authentication status.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core function without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though the brevity sacrifices detail on parameters and usage.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately lists the three return components. However, it does not describe the structure or format of the response, leaving some ambiguity about what exactly is returned under each category. A more complete description would include example values or a note about the response format.

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 single parameter 'response_format' has enum values (json, markdown) and a default of 'json', but the description does not mention this parameter or explain its effect. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by clarifying how the parameter controls output format, which is essential for agent decision-making.

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 'Return' and the resource 'privacy audit info', listing three specific components (OAuth scope, synthetic media, live-upload safety boundaries). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like youtube_upload_short or youtube_list_recent_videos by focusing on privacy audit rather than operations. However, the description could be more explicit about what each component entails.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like youtube_oauth_authorize_url or youtube_connection_status. It does not specify prerequisites, use cases, or situations where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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