yt_list_videos

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: OAuth2 is required, quota cost is ~2 units per 50 videos paged, and private/unlisted/scheduled items are included. The 'applied locally' note on query is a meaningful disclosure about how filtering interacts with paging.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler; the resource and scope come first, then the optional filter semantics, then cost and auth prerequisites. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 compensates by enumerating returned fields (videoId, title, privacyStatus, publishAt, views, URL). Auth, cost, ordering, and filter semantics are all covered, leaving nothing material an agent would need to guess.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: `query` is case-insensitive, matches title or description, and is applied locally rather than server-side. `limit` is left entirely to the schema, so it does not reach a 5.

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 the authenticated channel's uploads'), states scope (private, unlisted and scheduled), ordering (newest first), and the exact fields returned. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like yt_video_details or yt_channel_snapshot without opening any schema.

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?

It clearly establishes the context of use: the authenticated channel's own uploads, with optional local title/description filtering. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling (e.g. yt_video_details for a known videoId) or state when-not to use it, which keeps it short of a 5.

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