Channel Shorts

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

With readOnlyHint=false set, the description usefully clarifies that this is a read-like POST that does not publish to social platforms, and warns about credit consumption and the confirm=true gate — real behavior beyond the annotations. It also explains null-vs-ISO-8601 semantics for publishDate, though it doesn't cover rate-limit or failure behavior.

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 the primary purpose and return shape, then a short operational paragraph. Sentences earn their place, though the publishDate null explanation is slightly verbose relative to its importance.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return array (shorts) and the per-item fields plus publishDate semantics. Credit cost, the confirm gate, and paging are all covered; only failure/edge behavior is absent.

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%, so the schema already documents handle/channelId, account, sort, confirm, and continuationToken. The description largely restates those (sorting, token paging, confirm) without adding format or precedence detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (retrieve paginated Shorts from a YouTube channel) and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling list tools like youtube_channel_lives or youtube_channel_community_posts. It never explicitly names an alternative sibling (e.g., youtube_channel_videos or youtube_trending_shorts), so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Gives concrete operational context: sorting options ('newest' or 'popular'), how to page with continuationToken, and a hard prerequisite (confirm=true because it consumes paid credits). It lacks an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-sibling rule, which keeps it below 5.

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