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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the corpus is limited to public videos already linked to rising games and only the hottest anomalies, results are view-sorted, and paging is via nextCursor. It does not discuss rate limits, staleness, or linking latency.

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?

The core scope and returned fields are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by filters, paging, and purpose in compact order. It is dense but every sentence carries information; the only minor cost is that the returned-field list makes the opening sentence long.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format detail is unnecessary; the description instead covers what matters for invocation: source platforms, the rising-games linkage, view-based sorting, filter dimensions, pagination, and the corpus limitation. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter including the enum and cursor is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the filter surface (game, title keyword, platform) and the paging mechanism, adding little meaning beyond what the schema already provides; notably 'title keyword' is not explicitly tied to the `niche` parameter name.

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+resource: public TikTok and YouTube videos already linked to rising games, sorted by views, with the returned fields (url, network, views, publish date, game) named explicitly. The scope is narrow and distinct from every sibling tool, all of which operate on game/market analytics rather than video content.

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 a concrete use case ('use them to study hooks') and a scoping constraint ('videos are tracked for the hottest anomalies only'), which tells the agent what will and will not be present. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling, but no sibling overlaps this retrieval, so no exclusion is needed.

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