youtube_analytics_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned metrics (views, watch time, subscribers, etc.) and date range defaults, which is beneficial. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or how invalid dates/edge cases are handled. For a read-only analytics tool, this is decent but not comprehensive.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, followed by the return metrics, and then a straightforward parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple scope (two optional params, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It lists the return metrics and parameter defaults, but the lack of an output schema means it could benefit from describing the structure of the summary (e.g., is it a single object with keys?). However, the metric list mitigates this, and the tool is simple enough that this is sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by specifying the format (YYYY-MM-DD) and default values for both start_date and end_date. This goes beyond the bare schema definition of string/null and helps the agent construct valid inputs.

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 begins with 'Get channel-level analytics summary', which is a specific verb+resource construction. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling analytics tools by focusing on the overview rather than specific dimensions (traffic, demographics, etc.) and lists the specific metrics returned.

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 implies usage through 'channel-level' and 'summary', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like youtube_analytics_top_videos or youtube_analytics_traffic_sources. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, making it adequate but incomplete.

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