youtube_reporting_download

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 does disclose one important behavior: 'For large reports, the content may be truncated.' This is valuable transparency. However, it doesn't disclose other behaviors like whether the download requires prior API authentication, what happens with an invalid/expired download URL, or the CSV format specifics. The truncation note adds value but more could be disclosed.

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 appropriately concise at ~30 words, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Download a report CSV'), followed by key behavior notes and parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, truncation warning, and parameter source. No redundancy or fluff.

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 single-parameter download tool, the description covers the core essentials: purpose, output format, truncation behavior, and parameter source. However, it lacks details on error handling (expired URLs), authentication requirements, and whether the download URL expires (a common concern with YouTube reporting API URLs which have time-limited validity). Given there's no output schema to compensate, it's adequate but could be more complete.

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. The single parameter (download_url) is well-documented: the description says it comes from youtube_reporting_list_reports, which fully explains its origin and format. The 'Args:' section explicitly defines the parameter with its source. This is solid compensation for 0% schema coverage given there's only one parameter.

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 a clear verb+resource: 'Download a report CSV.' It identifies the output (CSV content as text) and notes it relates to youtube_reporting_list_reports, which distinguishes it from other reporting tools. It could be slightly more explicit about the distinction from siblings like youtube_reporting_list_reports and youtube_reporting_list_jobs, but the purpose is clear.

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 mentions 'Download URL from youtube_reporting_list_reports,' which implicitly guides usage by linking to the upstream tool that produces this parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, nor does it note prerequisites like needing to run youtube_reporting_list_reports first. It also doesn't mention auth requirements, though the presence of youtube_auth/youtube_auth_status siblings suggests auth is relevant.

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