cross_platform_shorts_table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: titles are normalized and matched against TikTok 'title' or 'video_description', and unmatched videos from either platform are retained rather than dropped. It stops short of covering failure modes (missing handle, scraping fallback interaction with yt_force_public) or API/auth requirements.

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?

It is a single dense sentence that front-loads the output artifact before the mechanics, and every clause carries information (matching rule, unmatched retention, metric list). The nested parenthetical makes it slightly hard to parse, but nothing is redundant.

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?

With only two parameters, no output schema and a read-only annotation set, the description covers the essentials: what is produced, how rows are joined, and which columns appear. The main gap is that it never explains how the channel is chosen (the yt_handle default) or what happens when a platform returns nothing, which matters for an open-world tool.

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 both parameters (yt_handle, yt_force_public) are already fully documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description mentions neither parameter and adds no meaning about how the handle selection or public-scraping fallback affects the table contents.

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 names a specific verb and artifact ('Generate a GitHub-Flavored Markdown comparison table') plus the exact data sources (YouTube Shorts vs TikTok videos), so the agent knows precisely what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'yt_shorts_experiment_table', which is the closest-sounding alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named despite 'yt_shorts_experiment_table', 'yt_channel_snapshot' and 'tiktok_channel_snapshot' being plausible substitutes. The matching semantics imply a cross-platform comparison use case, but the agent must infer that entirely.

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