Channel Videos

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

Annotations only flag readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuinely new context by disclosing credit consumption, the confirm=true gate, and that read-like POSTs do not publish to social platforms. That last clause usefully reconciles the non-read-only annotation with the perceived safety of the call. No rate limits or failure modes are described, though.

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 is returned, then a compact second paragraph covering cost/confirmation/behavior. Two sentences carry a lot of information with no filler, though the caveat about extras slightly duplicates the schema 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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape, paging, sorting, and the credit/confirm gate, which is enough for correct invocation. Missing are details on required identifiers (handle vs channelId choice) and what happens on invalid channel input.

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 all 8 parameters are already documented in the schema, including the enum for sort and the caveats on includeExtras. The description restates sort options, continuationToken paging, and includeExtras without adding syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetches a paginated list of videos uploaded by a YouTube channel') and enumerates the returned fields (title, URL, thumbnail, views, publish date, duration, description). This scope cleanly separates it from siblings like youtube_channel_shorts, youtube_channel_lives, and youtube_channel_playlists 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?

It gives operational preconditions (paid API credits, requires confirm=true, use continuationToken to page) but never says when to choose this over youtube_search, youtube_channel_shorts, or the single-video endpoint. Usage is implied rather than contrasted.

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