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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: data freshness cadence (hourly for new/rising/tracked, daily for rest), a fallback read for missing videos, and that the call is free. It still omits authentication expectations despite an api_key parameter and says nothing about rate limits or error behavior.

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 definition is compact and front-loads what the tool returns, followed by cost and the equivalent REST endpoint. The semicolon-heavy parenthetical is dense but not wasteful.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values. It supplies freshness and cost context for a simple read tool, though it should also explain the optional api_key or auth expectations to be fully complete.

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 only 50%, and the description adds no parameter-level detail. The video_id format is already in the schema, while api_key is undocumented in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states the specific resource and value returned—a video's views per hour and its history. It doesn't name a sibling alternative, but the per-video scope is clearly distinct from channel-level siblings like get_channel or my_channel.

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 implies usage by explaining where data comes from and that it's free, and it maps to GET /v1/videos/{video_id}/stats. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the fit.

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