list-membership-levels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly mentions the quota cost ('1 quota unit per call') and the monetisation gating ('403s unless the channel is an active YouTube Partner Program channel with memberships enabled'), which are critical for an agent to understand potential failures and side effects. This is exemplary transparency.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second covers cost and error conditions. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, with no filler or redundancy. Every word adds value.

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, zero-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, this description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what it costs, and when it will fail. The monetisation warning is critically important and fully disclosed. No critical gaps remain.

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, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. With no parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed; it appropriately focuses on operational details.

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 clearly states a specific action ('List') and a specific resource ('your channel's membership pricing levels'), unambiguously distinguishing it from sibling tools like `list-members`. The resource is well-defined, leaving no room for misinterpretation.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for your channel's membership pricing levels, which implies it's the right choice when you need to view pricing tiers. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name a when-not, but the resource specificity gives enough guidance for typical use.

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