video_report

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or output format. The description only hints at input format (YYYY-MM-DD) but does not explain what the tool does beyond returning analytics. For a data retrieval tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 extremely concise (one sentence, 8 words) and front-loaded with the key action. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices necessary detail. Every word earns its place, but the lack of elaboration on parameters or behavior prevents a higher score.

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 has 4 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and an output schema that is not described, the description is incomplete. It omits what 'analytics' includes, how to interpret results, and the role of the 'metrics' parameter. The output schema exists but is not referenced, leaving the agent without enough context to reliably use the tool.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only adds meaning for 'start' and 'end' by specifying the date format (YYYY-MM-DD). It does not explain 'video_id' or 'metrics', which is critical given the default and optional nature of 'metrics'. The description inadequately compensates for the missing 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 'Per-video analytics between start/end (YYYY-MM-DD)' clearly identifies the tool as providing analytics for a single video within a date range. The verb 'analytics' combined with 'per-video' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'channel_report' (per-channel) and 'top_videos' (aggregate), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 for per-video analytics with a date range, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or references to other tools (e.g., channel_report). The purpose is clear enough to guide selection by inference, but explicit guidance is missing.

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