youtube_concurrent_curve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the constraint 'for one ended live stream' and says metrics are 'real but only answer in one exact query shape', but this is cryptic and does not clarify side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. The lack of any behavioral detail beyond a vague limitation is insufficient.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but the second clause 'which this builds' is confusing and unexplained. It front-loads the main purpose but then introduces a cryptic notion of a query shape without elaboration. Overall, it is brief but not optimally structured for clarity.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain required inputs (videoId, startDate), response format, or any operational details. An agent cannot determine how to call this tool correctly based solely on the description and schema.

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?

The description adds no information about parameters. The schema already documents startDate, account, and outputPath, but there is no compensation for the undocumented videoId, endDate, and format. With schema description coverage at 50%, the description should help clarify the other half, but it does not. It adds zero value beyond the schema for parameter meaning.

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 returns peak and average concurrent viewers for one ended live stream, minute by minute. It specifies a concrete resource and metrics, and the phrase 'only answer in one exact query shape' hints at specialization, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling analytics tools. It is not a tautology and conveys a distinct function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like youtube_analytics_query or youtube_reporting_call. There are no conditions, exclusions, or context that help an agent choose this over siblings. The description merely states what it does without any usage criteria.

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