List my videos

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: results are ordered newest first, include views and likes, and — critically — surface private and unlisted videos that public-facing tools cannot return, which is non-obvious and affects how an agent should use the result.

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?

Two tight sentences, no waste, with the scope and ordering front-loaded and the differentiating private/unlisted capability last as emphasis.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns — it names ordering and included metrics — and it also explains the account-selection failure mode via the schema. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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%, with limit's default/max and account's failure behavior fully documented in the schema. The description only adds the notion of a 'connected channel' as the scope, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (list videos), the scope (a connected channel, i.e. the caller's own channel), the ordering (newest first), and the returned fields (views and likes). The clause about private/unlisted videos being invisible to public tools implicitly separates it from the public search_videos sibling.

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?

The description makes clear when this tool is the right one: when the user needs their own channel's videos, including private and unlisted ones that public tools cannot see. It does not name search_videos or get_video explicitly or state exclusions, so it falls short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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