List Playlists

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the quota cost is '1 unit per page of up to 50 results', which tells the agent about pagination granularity and cost before calling.

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 very short sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope and followed by the cost note; there is no filler and nothing to trim. It is efficient, though efficiency here partly reflects under-specification rather than tight writing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the quota note is useful. However, for a tool sitting among get_playlists, list_playlist_items, and create/update/delete_playlist siblings, the description supplies no disambiguation, no ownership/private-playlist nuance beyond what the schema already states, and no indication of result scope.

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 four parameters (limit, channel, my_channel, page_token) are already documented in the schema, including defaults and formats. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond an implied page size, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 is a bare noun phrase, 'A channel's playlists,' which essentially restates the tool name 'list_playlists' without a verb or stated action. It adds only a scope hint ('a channel's') and does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like get_playlists or 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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. The presence of both list_playlists and get_playlists in the sibling set makes the absence of routing guidance a real gap, leaving the agent to infer selection from the name alone.

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