youtube_analytics_video_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states output is 'daily metrics' which offers some return-format context, but doesn't disclose auth requirements (likely needs youtube_auth), rate limits, what specific metrics are returned, or implications of missing data. For an analytics read tool this is a moderate transparency gap.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line, followed by return-format context and an Args section. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema but useful given 0% schema coverage. No wasted sentences; reasonably efficient.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, it provides the essentials: purpose, date defaults, and parameter formats. However, it lacks detail on which specific metrics are returned in the 'daily metrics', whether multiple videos require repeated calls, or any filtering options. Given the tool's moderate complexity (date-range analytics query) and many siblings, this is adequate but leaves room for more specificity.

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 for all three parameters. It documents video_id as 'YouTube video ID', start_date with format 'YYYY-MM-DD' and default '28 days ago', and end_date with format 'YYYY-MM-DD' and default 'today'. This is meaningful value beyond the schema, which provides only type and default null, and correctly notes null means defaults apply.

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 detailed analytics for a specific video over time' with a clear verb+resource (get analytics for a video). It sets itself apart from sibling tools like youtube_analytics_top_videos (aggregate rankings) and youtube_analytics_daily (which likely covers overall channel daily metrics) by being video-specific. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so some differentiation must be inferred.

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 (per-video detailed analytics over a date range) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. Among many analytics siblings (overview, daily, top_videos, traffic_sources, demographics), it doesn't state when to choose this over youtube_analytics_daily or youtube_analytics_overview. The defaults (28 days ago to today) provide some context but no exclusion guidance.

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