get_restricted_youtube_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Check' signals a read-only query, but there is no disclosure of return format, possible failure modes, or whether this reflects a global or per-client state. Still, for a zero-parameter status check, the basic behavior is adequately conveyed.

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 one focused sentence with no filler or redundant wording. The key subject, verb, and qualifier are all front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple: no inputs, no output schema, and a straightforward status question. The description is largely complete, though it could slightly clarify what 'Restricted devices' means and what the response looks like. These are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 no parameters, and the schema has no properties, so there is no parameter semantics gap for the description to fill. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and identifies the exact resource and state ('if YouTube is currently blocked for Restricted devices'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like block_restricted_youtube and unblock_restricted_youtube.

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 clearly establishes this tool as a status-check rather than an action tool, which is the right context for use. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but sibling names block_restricted_youtube and unblock_restricted_youtube make the distinction evident.

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