List monitored playlists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by saying it reads 'from local storage without fetching YouTube' and that the response contains 'playlists and count', which clarifies latency and side effects. It stops short of full disclosure (e.g., pagination or empty-state behavior), so not a 5.

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: purpose and ordering first, then routing guidance, then return/side-effect notes. No filler and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description still covers ordering, storage locality, and the response shape ('playlists and count'). Combined with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already explains that 'enabled_only' filters registrations and does not imply capture consent. The prose adds nothing about that flag, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline 3 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List registered playlist monitors'), plus ordering ('newest first') and the payload ('with saved monitoring settings'). It also distinguishes itself from list_monitored_playlist_events and list_sources, so an agent can pick it without opening the 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 states the concrete prerequisite use case ('Use to obtain playlist_id before polling or removal') and routes the agent elsewhere for two adjacent needs: discovery events and standing-source consent. When-to-use and alternatives are both explicit.

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