Analyze own channel

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: results derive from saved data rather than live channel analytics, and scope is limited to 'recognized own channels' tied to a registered handle. It stops short of describing response shape or ordering, but the annotations carry most of the weight.

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?

Three tight sentences, with the capability statement front-loaded and the alternative-routing and data-freshness caveats after it. The middle sentence is dense with two alternatives but each clause earns its place; 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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the aggregate categories returned (hook/format history, monthly trends, top performers), and it discloses the saved-data limitation an agent would otherwise misread as live analytics. Combined with the read-only annotations and fully documented two-parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including that limit does not change stored data. The description restates the handle scoping rule ('registered handle or omit for all recognized own channels') but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('summarize') and resource ('saved own-channel videos') and enumerates the concrete outputs: hook/format history, monthly performance trends, top performers. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_engagement_signal or get_playbook_input, which are named explicitly.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('own-channel planning') and routes two competing cases elsewhere: get_playbook_input with creator-teardown for a chosen creator's research, and get_engagement_signal for a single item. Both alternatives and the selecting condition are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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