Trending Shorts

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

Annotations cover safety (destructiveHint=false) and open-world/non-idempotent behavior, but the description adds genuinely new context: it consumes paid API credits, needs confirm=true, and does not publish to social platforms. It also aligns with idempotentHint=false by warning each call returns a different batch. Rate limits or failure behavior are not disclosed, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core fetch behavior and scope, and the enumerated return fields are useful rather than filler. The trailing sentence about 'read-like POST requests' is slightly awkward but justifies its space by pre-empting a publishing concern.

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 responsibly enumerates the returned fields (title, URL, views, likes, comments, etc.) and discloses the credit cost and confirmation requirement. It is close to complete for an agent to call it correctly, though batch/pagination semantics beyond 'fresh batch' are unstated.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'account' and 'confirm' are already documented in the schema. The description restates the confirm requirement and clarifies the paid-credit consequence, adding only marginal meaning beyond the schema's own text, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Fetches'), resource ('currently trending YouTube Shorts'), scope ('approximately 48 per call'), and even what each item contains, so the agent knows this is platform-wide trending discovery. It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings like youtube_channel_shorts or youtube_search, which is why it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Each subsequent call returns a fresh batch' hints at repeated polling, and 'requires confirm=true' signals an approval gate. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over youtube_channel_shorts, youtube_search, or other trending feeds, so alternatives are left to inference.

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