list-video-abuse-report-reasons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It reveals the quota cost ('1 quota unit per call'), which is a concrete behavioral detail. The verb 'List' also implies a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly state safety or side-effect absence.

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 short sentences that front-load the primary purpose and add the cost warning. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description provides all necessary information: what is listed (reason IDs), why (accepted by report-video-abuse), and its cost. No additional context is required for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the output (reason IDs) rather than parameters, which is appropriate given the empty input schema.

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 the tool lists 'reason IDs accepted by report-video-abuse', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly referencing report-video-abuse, making its role unambiguous.

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 implies this tool should be used when you need valid reason IDs before calling report-video-abuse. It provides clear context for use but does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, though none are likely needed for this niche tool.

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