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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the 90-day scope, ordering by Wilson lower bound, minimum video/channel thresholds, how include_small changes those thresholds, and that the tool is free. It still omits some operational details such as pagination or response shape, though an output schema exists.

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 description is dense but front-loaded with the core purpose and metric details. Most sentences earn their place, though the parenthetical and endpoint reference make it slightly harder to parse than ideal.

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?

Given the output schema and moderate complexity, the description is largely complete: it covers scope, metrics, filtering thresholds, ordering, include_small behavior, and cost. It could still be improved with explicit guidance on when to use this versus related sibling tools and with api_key semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains include_small as lowering the threshold from 8 videos across 3 channels to 3 videos across 2 channels, but it provides no explanation of the api_key parameter beyond the schema title.

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?

The description clearly states a specific resource (title formats), time window (last 90 days), and the metrics returned (median multiple, share over 1.5x, adoption, examples). It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as format_videos, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explains what the tool returns but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no named alternatives among the many sibling tools. The include_small note is parameter behavior, not usage guidance.

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