youtube_analytics_revenue_by_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It includes the Partner Program requirement and the sorting behavior, but it omits other useful context such as authentication needs (e.g., requiring youtube_auth), currency/unit of revenue, or whether only monetized videos are included. This is a notable gap for a tool without annotations.

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, with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, a short prerequisite line, and a tidy Args list. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity or repetition of schema information.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain the return format (e.g., video IDs, titles, revenue values, or currency). It also does not distinguish itself from similar analytics tools regarding when to choose this over youtube_analytics_top_videos or youtube_analytics_revenue. While the purview is clear, this lack of return information limits completeness.

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's Args section adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains date formats (YYYY-MM-DD), defaults (28 days ago, today), and the max limit for max_results, none of which are in the schema descriptions (coverage 0%). The schema only provides titles and defaults, so this compensation is essential and well done.

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's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('revenue per video'), and specifies the sort order ('sorted by highest revenue'). This distinguishes it from sibling analytics tools like youtube_analytics_top_videos (which likely ranks by views) and youtube_analytics_revenue (which focuses on aggregate revenue).

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 gives a clear prerequisite: the channel must be in the YouTube Partner Program. This is essential context for when the tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which is a minor gap given the many sibling analytics tools.

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