Batch YouTube video stats

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

Annotations declare read-only and open-world, but the description adds critical behavioral detail: the endpoint is 'intentionally not atomic', missing videos are simply omitted, and the tool names the missing IDs. This goes beyond the annotations and prepares the agent for a short, non-error response, including the explicit instruction to never report missing IDs as zero.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose: stating the function, use case, input source, the lack-of-titles caveat with a workaround, and the non-atomic behavior. Key facts are front-loaded, and there is no superfluous content.

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 batch tool without an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: it states output includes views/likes/comments, explains how to handle missing videos (they are absent, not zero), and notes the absence of titles while providing a join strategy. It also mentions the tool is read-only and free, aligning with annotations. No critical information is missing.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context by specifying that videoIds should come from list_youtube_videos and reiterates the max of 50, which slightly exceeds the schema's description by tying the parameter to a specific source, though it does not explain the part parameter further.

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 the tool returns views, likes, and comment counts for up to 50 videos in one call, and explicitly contrasts it with youtube_video_insights to avoid per-video calls. This makes the purpose and scope unambiguous and distinguishes it from similar tools.

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?

It provides a concrete use case ('how are my last twenty uploads doing') and tells the agent to source videoIds from list_youtube_videos. It also explains when to use a different approach (when titles are needed, join with list_youtube_videos) and warns against interpreting missing IDs as zero views, giving clear usage boundaries.

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