get_top_videos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it scans up to 200 recent videos (scope limitation), returns sorted results, and lists metric options. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics (e.g., speed, rate limits), error handling, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, dense sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, scope, and key constraints. Every word earns its place with no redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and basic behavior but lacks details on return format (e.g., what data fields are included), error cases, or performance limits, which are important for a tool with 3 parameters and no structured output documentation.

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 fully documents parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning metric options and the scan limit of 200 videos, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. With 0 parameters undocumented, baseline is 4 for adequate compensation.

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 specific action ('Returns a channel's top performing videos'), resource ('channel's videos'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying it sorts by a chosen metric and scans recent videos. It's more specific than generic sibling tools like 'get_channel_videos' or 'get_engagement_stats'.

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 you need top videos by a metric, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_channel_videos' (which might return all videos unsorted) or 'get_engagement_stats' (which might provide aggregated stats). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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