check_topic

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: 'Heavier call (hits YouTube API)' and 'live', indicating real-time cost/latency. However, it omits details like auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, so the disclosure remains incomplete.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action, lists the outputs in a compact enumeration, and then adds the cost/usage disclaimer in a subordinate clause. Every part earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the key return fields: opportunity verdict, demand, competition pressure, Shorts mix, collisions, fit, suggested angles, and top recent videos. It also covers the heavier cost context. It could be enhanced with an example response or format, but the current detail is sufficient for a 3-parameter 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 coverage is 67%, with q and channelTier having descriptions and timeframe having an enum. The description adds little beyond the schema, except connecting 'fit for a channel size' to channelTier and giving a broad context for q. The parameter meanings are mostly clear from the schema itself.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Run a live YouTube shelf check on any game, topic, or query.' It also distinguishes this tool from browsing-oriented tools by stating it is for a specific idea the creator is seriously considering, not for browsing.

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 says when to use the tool ('for a specific idea the creator is seriously considering') and when not to use it ('not for browsing'). It also mentions the heavier cost as a reason for this guidance, but does not name sibling tools as alternatives.

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