youtube_analytics_demographics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. The description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as auth requirements, return format, or whether it aggregates across channels. However, the operation is a read-only analytics query, which is low-risk, and the description adequately conveys the core function without needing heavy caveats.

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 compact and efficient, with a one-line purpose followed by parameter documentation. No wasted sentences. It's arguably minimal but every sentence earns its place. Not verbose enough to warrant a 5 given it's essentially just the summary line plus arg docs.

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 simple 2-parameter read-only analytics tool with both parameters documented, the description is adequate. No output schema exists, so the description could mention return format, but the tool is straightforward enough that the absence isn't critical. It's complete for the low complexity of this 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%, but the description documents both parameters (start_date and end_date) with format and defaults, adding value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain semantics like inclusivity, timezone handling, or interaction between dates — the description covers the basics but not deeply. With the defaults explained, this is a baseline-fair compensation.

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 states 'Get audience demographics — age group and gender breakdown' which is a specific verb+resource and clearly identifies what data is returned. It differentiates well from sibling analytics tools (traffic_sources, geography, daily) by naming the specific dimensions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these 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 implies usage context by specifying the metrics (age group and gender) which helps distinguish from analytics siblings. There's no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, but the demographic focus is reasonably clear from the tool name and description.

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