get_video_analytics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the non-mutating analytics nature, the default time_period of '28d', and the return payload via the Returns section. However, it does not state what happens when time_period and explicit start/end dates are provided together, how invalid video_ids are handled, or any auth/rate-limit context — moderate gaps for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 sentence is front-loaded and the Args/Returns sections are compact and information-dense. Every parameter line earns its place given the 0% schema coverage, and the Returns block adds interpretive color like 'daily trajectory.' Only minor redundancy exists since an output schema is present, so the Returns section is not strictly necessary but remains brief.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers invocation essentials: all parameters documented with formats and defaults, plus a clear return summary. What is missing is interaction guidance for overlapping siblings (get_video_details, get_analytics_by_dimension) and edge-case semantics such as whether time_period and explicit dates are mutually exclusive or how they combine. This is adequate for calling the tool but leaves selection and boundary questions open.

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 compensates: video_id is given its 11-character format plus a concrete example ('dQw4w9WgXcQ'), time_period lists all five valid preset values and its default, and start_date/end_date specify their YYYY-MM-DD format and optionality. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema, which lacks any property descriptions.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Performs deep-dive analytics on a single specific video.' The 'single specific video' scoping separates it from channel-level siblings like get_channel_overview and get_channel_analytics, while 'deep-dive analytics' and the listed return payload (daily trajectory, views, watch time, traffic sources) distinguish it from the metadata-oriented get_video_details. An agent can select this tool without opening the schema.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the 'single specific video' + 'analytics' phrasing suggests it is the per-video analytics counterpart to channel-level tools, but no alternative is named and no when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule is given. The description does not address how it differs from nearby siblings such as get_video_details or get_analytics_by_dimension, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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