Youtube Get Playlist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the quota cost (one unit from the shared 10,000-unit pool), the error taxonomy (nonexistent vs private fail differently, neither is retryable, private stays private with an API key), and the semantic edge case that item_count 0 is a real empty playlist rather than a failure.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then prerequisites and failure modes. Dense and mostly earned, though the aside about `search.list`'s 100 calls/day bucket is slightly beyond what's needed to invoke this tool correctly.

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 single-param getter with an output schema, nothing an agent needs is missing: purpose, prerequisite, sibling routing, quota cost, and failure semantics are all present. The return-field discussion is somewhat redundant with the output schema but reinforces the playlist-vs-video timestamp distinction.

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 coverage is 0% and the single `playlist_id` param is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It explains what the ID must be and where to obtain it (channel `uploads_playlist_id`, video page, user), but stops short of giving the ID's string form or an example, leaving the agent to infer format.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with explicit scope: "Get one playlist's own metadata by ID", then enumerates the fields returned (title, description, channel, size, visibility). It explicitly separates itself from the sibling that handles playlist contents by naming `youtube_list_playlist_items`.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing ("For the videos in it, use youtube_list_playlist_items"), a hard prerequisite ("Requires the playlist ID — there is no lookup by name"), and explains why discovery is not offered. It even tells the agent where to source the ID (`youtube_get_channel` uploads_playlist_id, video page, user).

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