get_trending_videos_tool

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 only states what the tool does without mentioning any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates in practice.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter details in a structured 'Args' section. It avoids unnecessary words, but the parameter explanations could be slightly more detailed without sacrificing conciseness, keeping it efficient overall.

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 complexity of fetching trending videos (which may involve API limits, regional variations, or data freshness), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral context, it fails to provide enough information for reliable use. It should address aspects like response structure or error handling.

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 meaningful semantics for both parameters: it explains that 'region_code' is a 'Two-letter ISO country code' and 'max_results' is the 'Maximum number of videos to return'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well by providing essential context beyond the bare schema, though it could include examples or constraints for higher clarity.

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 purpose: 'Get trending videos for a region.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('trending videos'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_videos' or 'get_related_videos_tool', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_videos' or 'get_related_videos_tool', nor does it specify use cases or prerequisites. The only implied context is the need for trending videos, but this is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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