compare-videos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'compare statistics' but doesn't specify what statistics are compared (views, likes, engagement metrics), how results are presented, whether there are rate limits, or if authentication is required. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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?

The description is extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted language. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource type, and scope.

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 tool with 1 parameter but 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what statistics are compared, how results are formatted, whether there are constraints beyond the 2-10 video limit, or how this differs from other statistical tools on the server.

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?

The description mentions 'multiple YouTube videos' which aligns with the 'videoIds' array parameter, adding context about the resource being compared. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't explain the 2-10 video limit, the format of video IDs, or what constitutes valid input beyond what's implied by 'YouTube videos.'

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 action ('compare statistics') and resource ('YouTube videos'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-video-stats' or 'analyze-channel-videos' that might also involve video statistics, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific comparison tool.

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 alternatives. With siblings like 'get-video-stats' (likely for single videos) and 'analyze-channel-videos' (likely for channel-level analysis), there's no indication of when comparative analysis across multiple videos is preferred over other statistical tools.

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