cloud-api-hub-youtube-downloader

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses link validity (6 hours), the high-quality muted video behavior, availability of additional formats, deciphered URLs, and billing cost per call. This is substantial useful behavioral context beyond a simple action statement.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential constraints and a pointer to the muxer. Every sentence adds value: validity, formats, muted video caveat, muxing alternative, and billing. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main operational details: what it returns, how long links last, the muted-audio caveat, and how to handle the audio/video merge. It does not describe exact response structure, but the simple link-returning nature makes this acceptable.

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 input schema already covers 67% of parameters with detailed descriptions for `filter` and `quality`, including acceptable values and defaults. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but it does clarify the overall output format and download-link behavior, which indirectly informs parameter usage. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 and resource: 'Grabs Youtube download links directly from Google Video server' and explicitly mentions the output includes 'additional formats' and 'deciphered URL'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from metadata-focused siblings like get_info and the muxing-focused get_mux.

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 gives clear usage context: this tool is for obtaining direct download links, and it explicitly points to the `/mux` endpoint as the way to merge audio and video when needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus get_info, but the download-focused purpose is unmistakable.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds a useful behavioral note about billing (1 credit per call) and the verb 'gets' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose what the returned metainfo includes, any authentication requirements, or potential side effects, which is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the billing note is useful. The leading '**Object**' is unnecessary and slightly distracting, but overall the description is concise and to the point.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description should explain what 'metainfo' encompasses or that it returns all available metadata fields. It also does not address the relationship to the specific sibling getters, leaving the tool's coverage ambiguous. Simple as it is, the description is insufficient for an agent to predict the return value or decide between this and the siblings.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', including an example and a regex pattern. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves metainfo from a video, using a specific verb ('Gets') and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_info_title or get_info_duration, which also fetch video metadata, making the scope ('metainfo') somewhat ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the more specific sibling tools (e.g., get_info_title, get_info_duration). The description mentions billing but does not clarify whether this tool returns all metadata at once or if siblings should be preferred for single fields.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions billing per call (1 credit) and groups the tool under 'Specific video Info', but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or describe the output format beyond implying a string. The billing note adds value, but deeper behavioral details are absent.

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 concise, with a single sentence stating the core function followed by compact metadata (group and billing). There is no redundant filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete: it states the output type (string), the input parameter is well-documented in the schema, and billing is disclosed. It lacks details on error conditions or return value formatting, but these are not critical for this straightforward 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?

The schema already provides 100% documentation for the single parameter 'id', including an example and a regex pattern. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 applies according to the high schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool's function: retrieving the YouTube video category for a given video. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_info_title, get_info_duration, etc.) by specifying the exact field it returns, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 tool's placement in the 'Specific video Info' group and its title make the use case evident: use it when you need the category of a YouTube video. While no explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, the context is clear given the sibling tools are all dedicated to individual video attributes.

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

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

The description discloses billing cost but does not mention read-only behavior, error handling, or what happens if the video ID is invalid. With no annotations, the description fails to provide a complete behavioral profile beyond the cost.

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 extremely concise, packing the return type, definition, group, and billing into a single sentence with zero filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

As a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description partially conveys the return type but does not explicitly state that it returns the channel ID for the given video. It also does not clarify whether the parameter is required, despite the schema showing zero required parameters, leaving a critical gap.

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 already fully documents the 'id' parameter with example and format, meeting the 100% coverage baseline. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 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 defines what a channel ID is but lacks an explicit action verb like 'gets' or 'returns'. The title and name imply the operation, but the description itself only describes the output value, making the purpose vague without relying on context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over sibling tools like get_info_channelName. The only hint is 'Group: Specific video Info,' which is a classification rather than actionable selection criteria.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose safety and side effects. The description only states the output type and grouping; it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on invalid input. For an info-retrieval tool, this is minimal.

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?

One sentence, concise and to the point, but lacks structure or sections. It is not verbose.

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 description only states the output and grouping/billing. It doesn't explain when to use this tool vs siblings (e.g., get_info_channelId), nor does it mention behavior beyond output. Even though schema covers params, the description is minimal.

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 coverage is 100% with the id parameter described. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond that, 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?

The description clearly states that the tool returns the channel title for a video. It specifies the output and the grouping, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools beyond the name itself. The purpose is clear but not highly distinctive.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., get_info_title, get_info_channelId). There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds a return type indicator and billing cost, and 'localized' hints at locale-dependent behavior. However, it does not explicitly state read-only safety, error handling, or which locale is used, leaving a moderate transparency gap.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no filler. The billing and group metadata are useful extras, though the lack of usage guidance is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.

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 one-parameter getter returning a string, the description covers the essential purpose, return type, and cost. However, it omits when-to-use/alternative guidance and does not clarify that the id is needed despite the schema declaring zero required parameters.

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%: the single id parameter is documented with an example and regex format. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond context, 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 states the resource ('localized video description') and groups it under 'Specific video Info,' which together with the get_info_* sibling names makes the purpose distinguishable. It lacks an explicit action verb, but 'get_info_description' and the string return marker make the behavior clear.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many sibling get_info_* tools. The description does not name alternatives or state exclusions, so an agent must rely on the name alone to know that this tool is only for descriptions.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output format (ISO 8601 duration) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or any potential side effects. 'Billing per call: 1 Credits' is a cost note, but the overall behavioral transparency is minimal.

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 concise, one sentence with a link, and front-loads the core purpose. It does not waste words and is appropriately structured.

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 one parameter and no output schema, so the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks information about when to use this tool (e.g., for a specific video vs. a list), and since there are many sibling tools, it could clarify that this is for a single video's duration. Given the simplicity, it's acceptable but could be stronger.

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 describes the 'id' parameter well with a regex validation pattern, and the description doesn't add further parameter details. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not confuse but also adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 the video duration as an ISO 8601 duration string. It is specific about the resource (video) and property (duration), and the sibling tools show this is one of several get_info_* tools, so the purpose is distinct.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. It only identifies the group 'Specific video Info' and billing. It doesn't mention that this tool requires a video ID or that it's for a specific video, and there is no alternative comparison.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly indicates the output (unsigned integer for max height) but does not address potential errors, rate limits, or other behavioral aspects. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not extensive.

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, front-loaded sentence clearly states the tool's purpose. The inclusion of 'Group' and 'Billing per call' is extraneous but organized, and the description is free of fluff, earning a high score.

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 getter with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value. It fits within the family of similar info tools and covers the necessary details for a tool of this simplicity, even if edge cases are not addressed.

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 coverage is 100% with the 'id' parameter well-documented (description, example, regex). The tool description adds detail about the output ('unsigned integer') but does not need to explain the parameter further since the schema is self-sufficient. Baseline of 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 precisely states 'maximum height in pixels' with a clear verb and resource, distinguishing itself from siblings like get_info_width and get_info_duration by specifying 'height'. The purpose is unambiguous and contextually fit within the 'Specific video Info' group.

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 context is implied through the 'Group: Specific video Info' tag, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It is minimally viable but lacks explicit guidance.

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

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

The description mentions 'Billing per call: 1 Credits' and the group, but does not disclose behavioral aspects such as whether the tool is read-only, if it makes network calls, or any side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it is minimal. The description is simply a data type explanation, not a behavioral disclosure.

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 concise and uses markdown bold for the object type, which helps scanning. It is only a few sentences and front-loads the key information (map of thumbnails). The inclusion of 'Group' and billing info adds some extra but is relevant context, so it earns its place.

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 has a simple parameter set and schema coverage is high, but the description fails to explain what the thumbnail data might include (e.g., sizes, URLs) or what the return format will be. Since there is no output schema, the description should guide the agent on what to expect, but it only says 'other information' without specifics. For a tool with one param and no output schema, this is below par.

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 already provides complete coverage of the only parameter 'id' with a detailed pattern and example, so the description does not need to add much. However, the description does not explicitly connect the 'id' parameter to the video being queried, but the schema's example makes it clear. Baseline of 3 given high coverage, and the description's mention of 'video' provides mild additional context, so a 4 is justified.

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 states that it returns a map of thumbnail images, but it is phrased as a definition of the object rather than a clear action. The verb is missing; it reads as '**object** A map of thumbnail images...' rather than 'Returns a map of thumbnail images...'. It does distinguish the resource (thumbnails) but not clearly from the sibling 'get_mux' or other info-getters, and the title adds little.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is in the group 'Specific video Info' and requires a video ID, but there are no explicit instructions or exclusions. The context of 'Group: Specific video Info' is present in the description but is not actionable guidance for choosing this over siblings like get_info or get_mux.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the output type, localization behavior, and per-call billing cost, but it does not describe read-only guarantees, practical id requirement, or error behavior.

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 very short and front-loads the essential output type and value. All fragments (string output, localized title, group, billing) earn their place, but the lack of a complete syntactical statement makes it slightly less structured than ideal.

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 one-parameter getter, the description covers return type and billing, and the schema covers the input. However, with many get_info_* siblings and no output schema, the missing usage guidance leaves the description incomplete.

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 sole parameter id is already fully documented in the input schema with format, example, and regex. The description adds no additional parameter context, so it meets the schema-covered baseline of 3.

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 identifies the tool's return value as 'the localized video title,' and the name/title make clear it fetches the title for a video. It is not a tautology, and the 'Specific video Info' grouping helps set it apart from broader siblings, though no explicit verb like 'retrieves' is used.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this instead of get_info or the other get_info_* field tools. The description only states the group and billing, neither of which explains selection criteria or alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states it returns a view count and that it costs 1 credit per call, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any behavior beyond that, such as whether it might return null for private videos, or any rate limits. It's a simple read operation, so transparency is acceptable but not rich.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence with key info, plus structured fields like Group and Billing. Front-loaded with the core value. No fluff.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It lacks details like whether the view count is for the current day or total, but the tool name says 'viewCount' and the description says 'number of times viewed', which is enough. With no complexity, this is fine, but it could mention if the video must be public or that it fails for missing IDs.

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 description coverage is 100% (the 'description' field covers the parameter), and the example is provided. The description adds the 'id' parameter meaning via schema, but it does not add extra beyond that. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, but the example and clear format in the schema give a slight boost. However, the description does not reference the parameter directly, so 4 is slightly generous; still, the info is complete.

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 provides the number of times a video has been viewed, and the title aligns with the resource (video view count). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools beyond being a specific field of video info, but that is clear from the tool name and group.

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: to get view count for a video. It mentions 'Group: Specific video Info' which contextualizes it among siblings, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, nor any exclusions. It's adequate but minimal.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It is a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it performs no side effects or modifications. It also does not disclose the return format or any error conditions, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the word 'get'.

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 brief, using a single sentence to convey the core purpose, with additional metadata (group and billing) in a separate sentence. The placeholder syntax is a trivial waste of space but not a significant structural issue. It is appropriately front-loaded with the key value.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, high schema coverage), the description is adequately informative for basic use. However, it does not mention return type or units beyond pixels, and lacks guidance on potential errors or when the width might be unavailable (e.g., for live streams), which are relevant for a video info 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?

The schema covers the only parameter 'id' with a description and example. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable for a single well-documented parameter under high schema coverage.

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 that this tool returns the maximum width in pixels of the encoded video content, using a specific noun ('width') and resource ('encoded video content'). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_info_height and get_info_duration by focusing on width alone, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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?

The description implies usage by indicating it retrieves a specific piece of video info, but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions such as 'use this instead of X when'. The billing per call note is a contextual hint but not usage guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions billing and hints at an object return, but omits output format, processing time, permissions, or other side effects, leaving significant ambiguity for a code-heavy tool.

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 only two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and cost without redundancy or filler. Every word serves a function.

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 complex with 10 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description fails to explain return value shape, typical usage patterns, or edge-case interactions, leaving major gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, with each parameter detailed in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the muxing context, so the baseline score of 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 generates directly downloadable links from a YouTube video using video and audio muxing. It distinguishes from sibling info tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from get_download.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The billing mention is a cost note, not usage direction, and no sibling tools are referenced.

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