List YouTube bulk reporting jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces 'Read-only, 0 credits' adding the cost context. More importantly, it discloses a behavioral limitation: the bulk API only returns data for days after a job existed. This goes beyond what annotations capture, so it adds valuable behavioral context without contradiction.

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 a compact three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives the critical usage warning and cost info. Each sentence earns its place; it could be slightly tightened, but it is well-structured and efficient.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it returns, why to call it, and a key limitation. It doesn't describe pagination or result structure, but that's minor given the simplicity. The sibling context (e.g., youtube_bulk_report, delete_youtube_report_job) further clarifies its role.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so there is nothing to document. Per the rubric, 0 params scores a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics and adequately covers what an agent needs to call 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 explicitly states what the tool does: lists YouTube BULK reporting jobs on the channel, including which report each generates, its report type id, and schedule time. It also ties the purpose to a concrete use case (checking if thumbnail-CTR history is accumulating), which makes it unambiguous and distinct from siblings like list_youtube_videos or youtube_bulk_report.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: call it before promising a user a number, to verify data availability and accumulation start date. It also discloses a timing constraint (bulk API only answers about days after a job existed). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when NOT to use it, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent.

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