get_competitor_videos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required channel ID format and the fields returned, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any side effects. The verb 'Lista' implies a safe read, but additional behavioral details are absent.

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 three concise sentences: the first states the action, the second provides the use case, and the third states a requirement. No unnecessary detail or repetition.

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?

Without an output schema, the description usefully lists the returned fields (title, views, likes, duration, date). It also gives a use case. It could mention ordering or result limits, but those are covered in the input schema, so the description is reasonably complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the channel ID requirement ('começa com UC'), which is already in the schema, without adding new parameter-specific semantics.

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 tool 'lists videos of a competitor channel' with specific fields (title, views, likes, duration, date). The word 'concorrente' distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely target the user's own channel, such as list_channel_videos.

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 says it's 'useful for analyzing competitor content strategy,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools for comparison, so it lacks full when-not guidance.

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