youtube_analytics_revenue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose the return format, whether the tool fails gracefully if not monetized, pagination behavior, or granularity of data. For an analytics read operation, this leaves the agent guessing about response shape and failure modes.

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?

Concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line. Followed by prerequisite and result components, then parameter documentation. Compact and organized with clear sections. Minor waste in repeating defaults that are in the schema.

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-param read-only analytics tool, the description covers the essentials: what it returns and the monetization prerequisite. But with no output schema and no annotations, it could add more about response structure or date range behavior. It's adequate but not rich—leaves the agent guessing about the exact shape of the revenue data returned.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain both parameters (start_date and end_date) with their defaults mentioned in prose. However, the description's mention of defaults could be construed as duplicating schema defaults. It adds the YYYY-MM-DD format hint which is mildly helpful. Baseline for schema-covered params would be 3, and the description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the 0% coverage.

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 it returns a revenue breakdown with specific components (estimated, ad, and YouTube Premium revenue). The verb 'get' + resource 'revenue breakdown' is specific. It distinguishes reasonably from sibling revenue tools like youtube_analytics_revenue_by_video, though it doesn't explicitly call out that sibling.

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?

States the key prerequisite: requires YouTube Partner Program (monetized) membership. This is important contextual guidance that helps the agent know when this tool will/won't work. It lacks explicit alternative guidance but the monetization requirement provides useful context vs siblings.

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