pl_video_popular

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return shape (array of {title, canonicalUrl, date}) and explicitly states no authentication is needed, both of which are behavioral details not present in the 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 extremely concise, consisting of only the summary, the return format, and an auth note. Each segment provides distinct value with no redundancy or filler, making it well-structured and front-loaded.

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, the annotations cover read-only/idempotent behavior, the schema documents the parameters, and the description provides the return format and auth requirement. However, it does not elaborate on the ordering or the precise meaning of 'popular', nor explicitly state that an array is returned (though the return format implies it). Overall, it is nearly complete for a filtered list tool.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (limit as page size, recency as lookback window), achieving 100% coverage. The description reinforces recency by referencing it in the summary, but adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 states 'Popular video over the last `recency` hours' and provides the return format, making it clear the tool returns popular videos within a time window. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', and while it is distinguishable from sibling tools like pl_video_latest by name, the description does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pl_video_latest or pl_news_popular. The only contextual hint is the recency window, which implies a use case for recent popular videos, but there are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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