youtube_reporting_list_reports

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does add some useful behavior context: reports are generated daily and retained for 60 days. This hints at freshness/availability windows. However, it doesn't disclose what report metadata is returned, whether reports require auth, or detail the response structure. Acceptable but not 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?

The description is compact: one purpose sentence plus a retention detail plus a parameter note. Every sentence earns its place. The Arg line clarifies provenance of job_id. It's front-loaded with the purpose statement.

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 single-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The daily generation and 60-day retention are valuable context. It's complete enough for selection and invocation, though it could mention what fields each report contains or what the return list looks like.

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%, so the description's 'Args' section is the only parameter documentation. It explains job_id comes from create_job or list_jobs, which is genuinely useful provenance context. However, given only one simple parameter exists, the burden is low and the description adequately covers it.

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 'List available reports for a job' with a specific verb+resource combination. It's clear this lists reports tied to a particular job. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like youtube_reporting_list_jobs, but the job_id parameter and 'for a job' scope clarify the difference from listing jobs or types.

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 mentions reports are 'generated daily and available for 60 days,' which gives contextual timing information. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_jobs to find jobs, create_job to make one, download to fetch a report). The usage is implied rather than explicit.

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