Youtube List Channel Videos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses the underlying API implementation (uploads playlist via channels.list, cached forever, walks playlistItems), the cost model (one unit per page of 50 from a shared 10,000-unit pool vs. the scarce 100/day search.list bucket), and latency-ish behavior (walk stops as soon as max_results is reached). These are high-value behavioral facts an agent needs for quota-aware planning. It also states what each item does and does not contain (no view counts).

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 the core purpose in the first sentence, then cost rationale, then requirements, then per-item contents, then continuation behavior. Every sentence carries a distinct decision-relevant fact; no filler.

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 moderate complexity, the absence of annotations, and the presence of an output schema (so return shape needn't be re-explained), the description covers purpose, routing, cost, prerequisites, item contents, and continuation. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 0% and there are 2 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that channel_id must be the channel's ID (not handle) and that max_results controls how far the walk goes, with next_page_token for continuation. It does not spell out the min/max bounds (1-50) that the schema encodes, but the semantics of both params are covered at a level beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb+resource (list a channel's recent uploads) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `youtube_search_videos`, positioning it as 'the cheap alternative to searching.' An agent can immediately tell when to use this over search.

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?

Explicitly gives the when: 'Use it whenever the question is "what has this channel posted", instead of youtube_search_videos.' It also provides the prerequisite path (start from youtube_get_channel if you only have a handle) and tells the reader where to get view counts. This is textbook routing guidance.

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