Youtube-MCP

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 does well by specifying the max 10 video limit and what metrics are compared (views, likes, comments, engagement rate), but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the comparison results take beyond 'per-video stats'.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: first states the core function and constraint, second specifies the return values, third provides usage context. No wasted words, well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (comparison operation with multiple metrics), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does reasonably well by specifying the comparison scope and metrics. However, it could be more complete by describing the output format or providing more behavioral context about how the comparison is performed.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the max 10 limit and mentioning YouTube video IDs, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('compare', 'returns', 'declares') and resources ('videos', 'stats'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on side-by-side comparison of multiple videos rather than single-video analysis or channel-level operations.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Great for understanding why one video outperformed another') and implies usage by specifying it's for comparing multiple videos. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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