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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read operation and 'public' indicates access level, which is useful, but it does not disclose what a 'video record' contains, how missing/invalid IDs are handled, or whether the response is metadata or media content. This is adequate for a simple fetch but not richly transparent.

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 one tight sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, and every remaining word ('one,' 'public,' 'stable') contributes meaning.

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?

For a simple single-parameter fetch, the description covers the essential facts: what is retrieved, by what key, and the public access level. But with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves unspecified the shape of the returned 'video record,' error behavior for unknown IDs, and whether this returns metadata or media content. It is adequate but not complete.

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 schema only declares 'id' as a required string with no description. The tool description adds that this ID is 'stable' and identifies 'one public video record,' giving the parameter meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not describe ID format, provenance, or how to distinguish this ID from related transcript or search IDs, and with 0% schema coverage more compensation would be welcome.

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 ('Retrieve'), a precise resource ('one public video record'), and the lookup key ('stable ID'). It is clearly distinct from siblings: get_transcript targets a different resource, while recent_videos and search_videos return collections rather than a single record.

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 makes the usage context clear: call this when you have a stable video ID and need the corresponding single video record. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the sibling tool names and the singular framing make the intended use obvious.

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