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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds value by disclosing the returned metric set (important since there is no output schema) and the cost signal 'Free.' It does not mention pagination limits or cursor behavior, which are left entirely to the schema.

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?

Roughly four telegraphic sentences with the payload description front-loaded and the two calling patterns and pricing note following in a logical order. Dense rather than padded, though it reads as a field dump in places.

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 16 optional parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden well by naming every metric column. It omits guidance on combining cursors with the many filters and on the default sort, which is the main remaining gap for correctly paginating a list this wide.

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 coverage is 69%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the account_id+video_id pairing and the outlier_multiple sort key, but those are already documented in the schema, and key filters like uploaded_in_range, collection_id, platform and timezone get no extra meaning added in prose.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Videos from tracked creators') and enumerates the exact metrics returned (views, views gained, outlier multiple, 24h/7d/14d/30d growth, engagement), which cleanly separates it from list_tracked_accounts and search_ugc_database. It stops short of naming a sibling tool outright, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 two concrete usage patterns: sort by outlier_multiple to surface viral videos, and pass account_id + video_id to get the single-video daily snapshot history. It never states when NOT to use it, nor points to the sibling to use for untracked/unenriched video discovery.

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