Find outlier uploads on a channel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful operational context: 'Runs on the caller's own free YouTube Data API key. Costs about 5 quota units.' However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output format will be, or any potential side effects, leaving some gaps.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose, then provide usage and operational context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: core functionality, when to use it, and operational requirements (API key and quota). It does not describe the return format, but the use case is simple enough that the description adequately prepares an agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the description need not repeat parameter details. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema is already comprehensive, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: 'Rank a YouTube channel's recent uploads by how far each beat that channel's own baseline.' It uses a specific verb ('rank') and identifies the resource (YouTube channel uploads) and the comparison basis (own baseline). This distinguishes it from siblings like channel_baseline (computes baseline) and compare_channels (compares channels).

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this when the user wants to know which of a channel's videos overperformed, or wants proven ideas from a specific channel.' It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough to guide an agent.

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