get_trending_videos

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only retrieval, but the description does not disclose authentication needs, default behavior, pagination, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits an agent would need to know.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it highly scannable and efficient.

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 YouTube API tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the description is too minimal. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the definition still omits authentication context, parameter details, and selection context relative to sibling tools.

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 for the two parameters. It adds mild meaning to region_code via 'specific region,' but it says nothing about max_results, value formats, or constraints. This is insufficient for a 2-parameter tool with no schema 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('trending YouTube videos'), and a scope ('for a specific region'). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_youtube_videos or get_video_details without needing to open 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?

The description implies usage when trending videos for a region are needed, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention related tools like search_youtube_videos or authentication prerequisites.

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