Get channel analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as safe. The description adds that metrics are 'fixed' and 'non-monetary', providing some additional context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose data freshness, limits, or what 'fixed' entails. With strong annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single 11-word sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with key information and contains no unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

The tool has low complexity (2 parameters, output schema exists). The description defines the output type (metrics) but does not explain how the channel is selected (likely implicit via auth) or the date parameters. With an output schema, return values are covered, but parameter documentation is missing. The description meets the minimum but has gaps.

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 two string parameters (startDate, endDate) with 0% schema coverage and no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not explain the date format, allowed range, or semantics (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD, time zone). Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 clearly states the verb 'return', the resource 'YouTube Analytics metrics', and specifies 'non-monetary' which distinguishes it from potential monetary analytics tools. The name and title are consistent. It differentiates from sibling tools like youtube_get_video_analytics which targets video-level data.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that video-level analytics should use youtube_get_video_analytics, or that auth status is needed first. The description assumes the agent knows to use this for channel-level metrics without explicit direction.

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