Performance of specific videos

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints, but the description adds crucial context: the reporting window is not the video's lifetime (with a concrete example), and resolve_titles incurs Data API quota while the Analytics query does not. This goes well beyond the annotations and clarifies real-world behavior.

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?

Every sentence carries essential information: purpose, differentiation, return shape, window nuance, and quota behavior. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically, with no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 read-only analytics tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key contextual gaps: when to use it, the reporting-window caveat, and the quota trade-off for title resolution. It also notes the row-per-video format, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying the date window semantics ('last 30 days of a video published two years ago') and the per-video row structure, which supplements the schema's param descriptions. It doesn't systematically re-iterate each parameter but adds meaningful context.

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 identifies the tool as providing metrics for specific named videos over a date range, explicitly distinguishing it from the sibling yt_top_videos by the use case 'when you already know which videos you care about.' It also states the return shape ('one row per video'), giving a specific, actionable purpose.

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?

Explicitly positions the tool as the counterpart to yt_top_videos and states the condition for using it ('when you already know which videos you care about'). This provides clear guidance on when to choose this tool over its sibling, and the quota note for resolve_titles adds practical usage direction.

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