Analyze a channel's performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by explaining the return value (a per-video multiple, with a worked 3.2x example) and the Shorts-flagging behavior. It omits quota/cost implications hinted at by the 'account' parameter.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core mechanism and differentiator. Each sentence earns its place, though the '3.2x means three times' phrasing is mildly redundant with 'multiple per video'.

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 correctly explains the return format and its meaning, plus the Shorts comparability caveat. Annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents channel, limit, and account. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. accepted channel formats), so it sits at the baseline.

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 precise mechanism (scoring recent videos against the channel's OWN median views) rather than a generic verb. The 'rather than which are simply oldest' clause and the 'multiple per video' detail make the tool's purpose self-distinguishing from raw analytics siblings even without naming them.

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?

Gives a clear workflow cue ('Use this before modelling anyone's content') and a caveat about Shorts. However, it never names an alternative tool (e.g. get_channel_analytics) or states when NOT to use it, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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