Check YouTube video title

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 states the comparison dimensions but does not disclose the output format (e.g., score, list, metrics), how the data is sourced, or any limitations. The agent cannot predict what a response will look like.

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, densely packed sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's function and scope, making it concise 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?

Despite the simple parameter set, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the agent will receive. It fails to specify the result type, scoring mechanism, or how to interpret 'demand' and 'competition'. This is a significant gap for a tool that is meant to guide title decisions.

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 schema already covers both parameters fully (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the query should be a 'gaming video title' and connecting it to the comparison aspects (demand, competition, overlap), which helps the agent understand the query's domain and intent beyond the schema's generic wording.

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 uses a specific verb ('compare') and clearly identifies the resource ('gaming video title or keyword') and what it is compared against ('recent YouTube videos, demand, competition, and title overlap'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_youtube_channel_name, which targets channel names rather than titles.

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: it is for evaluating a gaming video title or keyword against demand/competition. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_game_for_youtube or check_youtube_channel_name. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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