get_top_performing_videos

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose ranking behavior, metric choices, and the returned fields. However, it omits edge-case behavior like how time_period interacts with explicit dates, data freshness, or any rate-limit/error behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single clear sentence, followed by a structured Args/Returns list. Every line is informative and there is no filler 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 read-only ranking tool with moderate complexity, the description covers all parameters and return fields. It is slightly incomplete only in not explaining when to choose this tool instead of sibling analytics tools and in not covering date-conflict behavior.

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 0%, but the description fully documents every parameter: time_period presets and default, start_date/end_date format, order_by allowed values, and max_results default. This adds rich meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 a specific verb ('Identifies and ranks'), a specific resource ('your top-performing videos'), and a temporal scope ('within a time period'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_channel_videos or get_channel_overview.

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 implies usage: use this when you need a ranked list of top videos by a chosen metric. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tool names.

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