youtube_analytics_daily

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It describes what metrics are returned (views, watch time, subs, likes, shares) and the per-day granularity, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention date defaults behavior consequences, rate limits, authorization requirements (youtube_auth sibling exists), or whether data is delayed/eventually consistent. The 28-day-default and today-default behavior is disclosed, which is a plus.

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 tight and efficient: a one-sentence summary of purpose, a one-sentence value proposition, a one-sentence output format description, and explicit Args with dates and defaults. Every sentence earns its place with no filler 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?

For a 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, output shape (metrics per day), and both parameters with defaults and format. The only gaps are around auth requirements and data freshness/delay, which matter given youtube_auth sibling exists as a prerequisite. It doesn't specify return format structure beyond column naming, but that's adequate for this complexity level.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It documents both parameters: start_date (YYYY-MM-DD, defaults to 28 days ago) and end_date (YYYY-MM-DD, defaults to today). This adds format and default-value semantics that the schema lacks entirely. It also adds the output columns returned, which gives the agent expectations of the result shape. This exceeds what the bare schema provides.

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 'Get daily performance metrics over time' with a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling analytics tools by specifying 'one row per day' with explicit metrics (views, watch time, subs, likes, shares), and positions itself for 'spotting trends and finding optimal posting days', separating it from top_videos, traffic_sources, demographics, and other daily-aggregate siblings.

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 clear context for when to use it ('spotting trends and finding optimal posting days'), which implies temporal analysis use cases. However, it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like youtube_analytics_overview or youtube_analytics_day_of_week, nor state when NOT to use this tool. It names the output granularity (per-day rows) which helps differentiate from day_of_week aggregates.

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