cite42_youtube_trends

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context outside them: the call is billed in USD against a prepaid balance, the charge appears in the cite42Billing result field, and there is an approval threshold at 20 calls/$5. Return-format and latency details are absent, but the billing disclosure is substantive.

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?

Three sentences, all earning their place: the first defines the data, the rest cover billing and the confirmation threshold. Front-loaded with the capability before the cost caveat. Slightly dense with the parenthetical field reference, but no 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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of enumerating the returned data categories, and it covers the billing side effect, which is the main risk of invoking it. The one gap is the absence of routing guidance versus the other trend/content-opportunity siblings.

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 topic, region, and timeframe are already documented with lengths and defaults in the schema. The description adds no additional semantics about parameter behavior, so the baseline of 3 for schema-driven parameters applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('YouTube trend data') and enumerates the concrete outputs (rising videos, creator angles, title patterns, channel examples, video-market opportunities), which tells an agent exactly what it gets back. It implicitly separates itself from cite42_reddit_trends and cite42_trends via the 'YouTube' scope, but never names those siblings, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 gives a concrete usage rule for cost control: check cite42_pricing for exact prices and estimate/confirm with the user for plans over 20 calls or $5. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this over cite42_trends, cite42_reddit_trends, or cite42_find_content_opportunities, so the tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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