youtube-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by specifying the required OAuth scope, which is crucial for authentication. However, it doesn't describe rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what the analytics data looks like in the response. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 sized with a clear purpose statement followed by a structured parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers authentication requirements and parameter semantics adequately. The output schema will handle return value documentation, so the description focuses appropriately on usage and inputs.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 4 parameters in the Args section. It provides format details for dates, default values for metrics, and examples for dimensions. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be more comprehensive about valid metric/dimension values.

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's purpose as 'Get channel-level analytics' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_video_analytics' by specifying the channel-level scope. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all analytics-related siblings beyond the obvious name difference.

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 provides some usage context by mentioning the required 'yt-analytics.readonly scope' and implying usage for channel analytics. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_video_analytics' or 'get_my_channel', nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites beyond the scope requirement.

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