analyze_shorts_to_longform_ratio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly states what it calculates (publishing ratio, view disparities, conversion efficiency) and that it provides a customized recommendation, making behavior predictable. It does not discuss side effects or rate limits, but 'analyze' and 'calculates' imply a read-only analytical operation.

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?

Two compact paragraphs with no filler: the first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the Args section is scannable and concrete. Every sentence adds value.

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 two-parameter analysis tool, the description covers what it does, why it matters, what input format is expected, and the nature of the output. The presence of an output schema handles return-value details, so little essential context is missing.

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 input schema has no property descriptions, yet the description fully documents both parameters: expected channel handle or ID formats with examples, and sample_videos with range and default. This is exactly the compensation needed for 0% schema description coverage.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: analyze a channel's Shorts-vs-Long-Form balance. It then spells out concrete metrics and a recommendation output, distinguishing it from sibling analysis tools like audit_channel_strategy or analyze_optimal_upload_time.

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?

It communicates a clear use case: evaluating Shorts vs long-form balance and avoiding Shorts cannibalizing long-form watch time. It does not explicitly name when to prefer this tool over siblings or list exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to judge relevance.

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