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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains the behavior of different parameter combinations, including the meaning of a null position value. It also implies read-only behavior through the get_ prefix, but does not explicitly state it or disclose any rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 concise, with two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose, modes, and null handling. It front-loads the main function and uses clear structure, with no unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (top 20 videos with channel, views, title), the two modes, and the null case. It does not specify the exact response format, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of an output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The schema describes project_id and keyword, but days lacks a description. The description adds meaning by explaining that keyword is optional and triggers historical mode, and that null position means no channel video in the top 20. This compensates for the partial schema coverage.

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 it retrieves YouTube channel positions for monitored keywords in YouTube search results, specifying the top 20 videos. It distinguishes between two modes (without keyword for latest check per keyword, with keyword for historical data up to 365 days). This is specific and unique among sibling tools.

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 when to use the tool based on the presence of the keyword parameter, offering two clear usage scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear that this is for YouTube-specific rankings, distinct from other get_ tools. No explicit 'when not to use' guidance is given.

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