Top Videos by Views

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral details: it 'returns enriched' data, cites specific error codes (403 scope, 400 invalid date), and describes the exact JSON output shape. No contradictions with 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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Errors). The first sentence is direct. However, it is somewhat verbose (e.g., 'enriched with video titles fetched from the YouTube Data API' is partially redundant given the return shape). Could be slightly trimmed without losing clarity.

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 no output schema, the description provides a detailed JSON shape showing columns and rows. It covers all parameters, default values, range constraints, example usage, and common error messages. Includes the authenticated channel scope. No obvious gaps for a query tool.

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 all four parameters. The description repeats the same parameter descriptions and adds a response_format explanation with enum values. However, it does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as example values or constraints beyond the schema's min/max. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns 'top-performing videos on the authenticated channel ranked by views, enriched with video titles.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like youtube_list_my_videos (which lists all videos) and youtube_video_performance (which focuses on specific video metrics).

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 example queries (e.g., 'What are my top 5 videos this month?') that imply when to use the tool, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tools to consider. The examples help but the absence of exclusions or sibling references leaves some ambiguity.

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