Get YouTube trending

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds only the phrase 'raw YouTube data', which hints at no post-processing, but it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, return shape, pagination, or the fact that results are not personalized or curated. This is a significant gap for a data-fetching tool.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the parenthetical 'raw YouTube data' adds useful nuance without bloating the description.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough to know what resource is returned and that region is a factor. However, missing behavioral details like return structure or data-source caveats leave the description merely adequate rather than 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 100%, so the schema already documents max_results and region_code including defaults and constraints. The description's 'for a region' reinforces region_code's semantics but adds no new parameter meaning beyond the structured schema.

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: 'Get YouTube's most-popular videos for a region'. It clearly identifies what the tool returns and distinguishes it from channel-focused or search-oriented siblings, though it does not explicitly name a comparable alternative.

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 'for a region' clause implies the primary use case and ties to the region_code parameter, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like search_channels or get_channel_videos. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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