Find channel outlier videos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly states what the tool does and what it returns: 'Returns raw YouTube fields plus a derived multiplier (marked as non-YouTube data).' The 'find' language implies a read-only operation, and the return behavior is transparently described, including the notable caveat about derived data provenance.

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?

Three compact sentences, each earning its place: the core function, the recommended use case, and the return-value shape. The key discriminating concept is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, use case, and output shape well. It leaves little ambiguity about what the tool is for or how to interpret its results. It could be more complete by describing pagination or rate-limit implications, but those are not essential for basic invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful interpretive context for the domain—median views and derived multiplier—but it does not substantially elaborate on parameter behaviors beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific verb ('Find'), a specific resource ('videos'), and a precise criterion ('overperformed vs the channel's own median views'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_channel_videos or get_trending by focusing on outlier detection relative to the channel's own baseline.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use it to reverse-engineer which topics/formats worked.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The purpose is specific enough that an agent can route to it appropriately.

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