youtube_analytics_revenue_by_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the YPP requirement (useful), but does not describe what happens if the channel isn't in the program, whether revenue is in a specific currency, whether the revenue is estimated, or how zero-revenue videos are handled. For a financial data tool, more behavioral disclosure would be expected.

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 efficiently structured with a one-line summary, a prerequisite note, and a clean Args section. Each element earns its place. The Args block is a good structured format for parameter documentation, and the whole thing is compact without wasted prose.

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?

With 3 params, no annotation, and no output schema, the description needs to cover both invocation semantics and return behavior. It handles the params well and the YPP prerequisite. But for a revenue tool with no output schema, it doesn't describe what fields are returned per video (e.g., revenue amount, currency, views revenue vs. ad revenue breakdown), leaving the agent guessing about the return shape.

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. The Args section does describe all three params with types and defaults (start_date, end_date, max_results). This adds meaning not in the schema by stating date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and the max_results cap of 200. However, it doesn't explain date-range semantics beyond defaults or what 'max 200' means for the actual cap behavior.

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?

'Get revenue per video, sorted by highest revenue' is a clear verb+resource+sort description. It distinguishes from siblings like youtube_analytics_top_videos (view-based ranking) and youtube_analytics_revenue (aggregate revenue) by specifying per-video granularity with highest-revenue sorting.

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 explicitly notes the YouTube Partner Program requirement as a prerequisite. While it doesn't compare against sibling analytics tools, the 'revenue per video' framing and the YPP requirement give clear context for when this is applicable. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but provides a meaningful constraint.

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