youtube_auth_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a non-mutating operation, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds the notion that the check is 'local' and 'safe' — implying it inspects stored credentials without side effects — which is genuine context beyond the annotation. It stops short of saying whether anything is written or refreshed during the check.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the core claim is front-loaded. It is perhaps too compressed for the ambiguity it leaves, but there is no wasted text.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is the only source of truth about what a 'readiness report' returns (token present? expired? missing scopes?). It leaves that entirely unspecified, which matters for a status-check tool an agent may need to branch on.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema is trivially complete.

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 verb 'Report' and the resource 'YouTube authorization readiness' are identifiable, so the general purpose is graspable. However, 'safe local' is vague jargon and the description never distinguishes this from the nearby account-state sibling youtube_my_account. An agent must guess what 'readiness' actually covers.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., call before upload/preflight tools to verify credentials), and no exclusions. The agent gets no routing signal at all.

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