trending

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 valuable context about quota cost ('Quota cost is 1 unit'), which isn't in the schema, but lacks other critical details like response format, pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and scope, and another providing quota information. It's front-loaded with the core function, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from behavioral notes.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and behavioral complexity. It covers quota cost but misses details on return values, error handling, and usage constraints. However, the high schema coverage partially compensates, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between 'geo', 'type', and 'lang', or clarifying the 'X-CACHEBYPASS' impact. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get trending videos') and specifies the scope ('region-wise & niche-wise'), which distinguishes it from siblings focused on channels, search, or specific content types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'home_feed' or 'related_videos_or_playlists' that might also surface trending-like 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'region-wise & niche-wise' but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over other discovery tools like 'search', 'home_feed', or 'related_videos_or_playlists', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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