List my videos

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

Annotations already establish the read-only/idempotent safety profile. The description adds behavioral details beyond those annotations: results are ordered newest-first, include views and likes, and include private/unlisted videos. It does not describe pagination or account-choice failure behavior, but those are partly covered by the parameter schema.

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?

One dense sentence with no filler: the verb/resource appears first, followed by ordering, metrics, and the important visibility scope. Every clause pulls weight.

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 two-parameter, read-only list operation with a fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete. It supplies the key selection/sorting/visibility facts; only the lack of an output schema leaves the exact return shape slightly under-specified, though views and likes are named.

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. The description's 'connected channel' phrase reinforces the account parameter, but it adds no meaning beyond what the schema already states for 'limit' and 'account'.

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 ('List') and a clear resource ('videos on a connected channel'), then sharpens scope with ordering ('newest first') and the included metric fields ('views and likes'). The visibility note ('private and unlisted') distinguishes it from public search-oriented siblings such as search_videos without needing to name them.

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 gives clear context for use: it targets a connected channel and can surface private/unlisted content that public tools cannot. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative or stating a when-not-to-use condition, so it misses the top bar.

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