get_trending_videos

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It states the filtering behavior but says nothing about result format, pagination, sorting, rate limits, or safety. The verb 'get' implies read-only, but the description does not make any behavioral guarantees beyond that.

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?

A single sentence that delivers the action, resource, and the two key dimensions with zero filler. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

The tool is simple with 3 optional parameters, and the schema documents each parameter fully. But with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what video data will be returned or how results are ordered, nor does it give usage context relative to siblings. It is minimally adequate but has gaps.

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%, and every parameter has a helpful description including examples and defaults. The tool description only paraphrases 'region' and 'category' without adding new meaning, so the 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 uses a specific verb 'Get', names the resource 'trending/popular YouTube videos', and specifies the two filters 'by region and category'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_videos or get_channel_videos, which concern different scopes.

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 implies usage: call it when you need currently trending videos filtered by region/category. However, it never explicitly mentions when not to use it or points to an alternative sibling tool, leaving the boundary with search_videos inferred rather than stated.

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