docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that this is a read-only informational surface with no side effects. It conveys content coverage (quota rules, error reasons, gotchas) but does not state anything about return format or behavior for an unknown topic.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool is, followed by the usage rule and an itemized topic list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 one-parameter documentation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers what it is, when to use it, and what topics exist. It is essentially complete, with only minor gaps around return shape.

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 already 100% ('Omit for the topic index'), but the single schema param has no enum. The description supplies the full list of valid topic values, adding genuine meaning beyond the schema and functions as an informal enum.

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?

It states a specific resource (guides for the yt client) and grounds it against a named sibling, execute(). The enumerated topics make the scope concrete, so an agent can tell this is the documentation-retrieval tool rather than a search or action tool.

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 gives a clear ordering rule ('Read docs("overview") before the first execute() call') and enumerates topics, which implicitly routes needs like quota or publishing to the matching topic. It lacks explicit when-not/alternative guidance versus the search sibling, but the usage context is clear.

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