video_stats

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'View' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it disclose any limitations or response format. The ambiguous phrasing further weakens transparency, preventing a higher score.

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 one sentence and front-loaded with the action. It is concise, but the grammatical ambiguity reduces structural clarity, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description conveys the basic purpose, but lacks details on return structure or expected behavior (e.g., missing IDs, performance). For a tool of this complexity, the gaps prevent a higher score.

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?

With only one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It clarifies that video_ids are 'specific video ids', aligning with the schema, but does not elaborate on array semantics, acceptable ID formats, or behavior when multiple IDs are provided. It adds some meaning but leaves gaps.

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?

Description states the tool views counts for specific video IDs, which identifies the resource and action. However, the phrasing 'View, like, comment and share counts' is grammatically ambiguous, potentially reading as a list of verbs (view, like, comment, share) rather than metric types (view count, like count, etc.). This prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_videos or creator_info. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., obtaining video IDs) or exclude cases where this tool would be inappropriate.

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