get_video_analytics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required OAuth scope ('yt-analytics.readonly'), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what the analytics output contains (though an output schema exists).

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 well-structured with a purpose statement followed by parameter details. Every sentence earns its place, though the metrics default list is quite long but necessary. It could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the scope requirement to a separate line.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does an excellent job explaining parameter semantics. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need description. However, it could better address behavioral aspects like error handling or data freshness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides clear semantic explanations for all 4 parameters: what video_id represents, date format requirements for start_date and end_date, and detailed default values and format for metrics. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the specific action ('Get analytics') and resource ('for a specific video'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_channel_analytics (channel-level) and get_video_details (metadata). The verb 'Get' is precise and the scope is well-defined.

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 states when to use this tool ('Get analytics for a specific video') and mentions the required scope ('yt-analytics.readonly'), providing clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_channel_analytics or specify when not to use it.

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