Get trending videos

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a quota cost ('1 quota unit') and category examples, which are useful. It does not describe pagination or response format, but the bar is lower given annotations. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a useful parameter hint and a quota note. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with all optional parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and one parameter's meaning, but lacks details on the other parameters and return format. Given no output schema and low schema coverage, it is partially complete but leaves 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides examples for category_id (28, 20, 22, 24) but does not explain max_results (beyond schema default/max) or region_code format. This leaves two of three parameters without semantic guidance.

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 tool retrieves the most popular videos in a region, with a specific verb ('Get' implied) and resource (trending videos). It distinguishes from siblings like search or get_videos by focusing on popularity and regional scope.

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 makes the primary use case clear—retrieving trending videos—and implicitly signals it is not for searching or fetching specific videos. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or name alternatives, though context is sufficient for an agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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