List Activities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context – the quota cost of 1 unit per page of up to 50 results – but says nothing about what 'recent' means in time terms or any auth requirements, so it adds value without being rich.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the quota cost follows as a separate, self-contained fact.

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 simple read-only list tool with a full output schema (so return values need not be described) and 100% schema coverage, the description covers purpose and cost adequately. The only real gap is routing guidance versus siblings, which is not required for correct invocation.

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%, so all five parameters (limit, since, channel, my_channel, page_token) are already documented in the schema, including formats and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 resource ('a channel's recent activity feed') and parenthetically enumerates its contents (uploads, playlist additions), so an agent can distinguish it from list_comments or list_playlists. It is phrased as a noun rather than a verb+resource, and it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest siblings (get_videos, search), so it falls just short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance: it does not say when this feed is preferable to get_videos, list_playlists, or search, nor does it state prerequisites (auth, channel ownership). Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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