pl_video_popular

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 states that the tool returns popular videos based on recency hours and provides the return format. However, it does not disclose how 'popular' is determined, whether results are sorted, if there are any authorization requirements, rate limits, or error scenarios. The transparency is adequate but minimal.

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, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the core purpose with parameter reference, and the second sentence provides the return format. Every word is informative, and it is front-loaded with the key action. No unnecessary text or repetition.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential functionality: retrieving popular videos filtered by recency, with a specific return format. However, it lacks details about the ordering of results, the definition of 'popular', and the effect of the 'limit' parameter. Given the low complexity, the description is nearly complete but could be slightly more explicit.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The description explains that 'recency' is in hours, adding meaning beyond the schema's default value. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter, leaving users to infer its purpose from the context. This partial addition of meaning results in a score of 3.

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 it returns 'Popular video over the last `recency` hours' and provides the return format as an array of objects with title, canonicalUrl, date. This clearly indicates it retrieves a list of popular videos filtered by recency, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'pl_video_latest' which likely return the latest videos. However, the singular 'video' is slightly ambiguous but the return clarifies it's an array.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention when to prefer 'pl_video_popular' over 'pl_video_latest' or other video retrieval tools. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or context for use.

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