List channel videos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not needed to establish safety. It still adds real behavioral value: result ordering (newest first), the surprising inclusion of private/unlisted/scheduled items, and the fact that each entry carries privacy, schedule, duration and view counts. It does not mention quota cost or whether the default channel is used when unset, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, ordering and scope front-loaded, and pagination last where it belongs. The phrase "with privacy, schedule, duration and view counts" is slightly ambiguous since "privacy" is also a filter parameter, but the return-value reading is recoverable from context.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the fields returned per video, which is the main completeness burden here, and it covers ordering and pagination. It leaves page size (max_results, capped at 50) and channel-defaulting behavior entirely to the schema, and gives no hint about cost or result volume for a potentially large listing.

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 coverage is 60%, with query, channel and privacy documented in the schema and page_token and max_results undocumented. The description only explains page_token ("Paginate with page_token") and never covers max_results or clarifies that query/privacy filter the current page only, so it partially but not fully compensates for the coverage gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("List videos on the channel") and adds ordering ("newest first") plus the key inclusion of private, unlisted and scheduled videos, which meaningfully separates it from get_video or list_uploads. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to route against, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource scope and the pagination instruction, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no pointer to alternatives such as list_uploads (upload jobs) versus this tool (channel video inventory). An agent can guess the context but is not guided.

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