get_trending_videos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that videos are 'currently trending/popular' (implying a dynamic list), but does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, ordering guarantees, or whether results are refreshed. For a read-like operation it likely has no destructive effects, but that is not explicitly stated, and the description does not add significant behavioral context beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core action and scope. There is no redundancy, fluff, or extraneous detail. Every word contributes to meaning, making it an efficient and well-structured description.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (three optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic action and scope but lacks several contextual details that an agent might need: how results are ordered (by popularity, views, etc.), whether results are region-dependent in a way that might surprise, or any limitations on region coverage. Without annotations, the description is adequate but not rich enough to fully inform correct usage in all cases, especially compared to sibling tools that could be mischosen.

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 provides 100% coverage, fully describing all three parameters (category_id, max_results, region_code) with types and example values. The tool description adds a passing reference to 'region and category', which aligns with two parameters, but does not introduce new meaning or clarify constraints beyond what the schema already documents. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it fetches currently trending YouTube videos, scoped by region and category. It uses specific verbs and resource naming, and while it doesn't name a specific sibling alternative, the purpose is distinct from nearby tools like search_videos or get_video_metadata. The combination of 'trending/popular' and 'by region and category' precisely defines what it returns.

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 for retrieving trending videos, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_videos (for general search) or get_video_metadata (for a single video). No guidance is given on when not to use this tool or which sibling to prefer in different scenarios. The implied context is there but not explicit.

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