cloud-api-hub-youtube-downloader

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral context: a 6-hour link validity window, deciphered (ready-to-download) URLs, the muted-high-quality caveat, and a per-call cost of 2 credits. It omits auth requirements and the exact return shape, but the disclosed traits are the important ones.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns and packs several important facts (expiry, caveat, muxer, billing) into a few sentences. The leading '**object**' token is wasted noise, keeping it just short of 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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the duration of validity, what the result contains, the muting caveat, and cost. Only parameter-level meaning and any auth/prerequisite detail are left unaddressed.

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 67%, with filter and quality well documented in the schema while id is only exampled. The description adds nothing about id, filter, or quality semantics, so it neither compensates for the gap nor improves on what the schema already provides.

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 specific verb and resource: grabbing YouTube download links from the Google Video server. It clearly distinguishes itself from the get_info* metadata siblings and points at the muxer resource, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 concrete condition for using the related /mux endpoint to merge audio and video, which implicitly frames when this tool alone is insufficient. It does not, however, contrast itself against the get_info family or state prerequisites for calling it.

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 full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses billing (1 credit per call) and implies a read-only 'gets' operation, but it does not explicitly state permissions, side effects, or return format details beyond the ambiguous 'Object' hint.

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 two short front-loaded clauses: the purpose then the billing cost. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and cost but leaves key context gaps. It does not clarify what 'metainfo' includes or how this aggregate tool relates to the numerous field-specific siblings, which an agent would need to choose 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%, and the schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter with a format regex and example. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 names a specific verb and resource (gets metainfo from a video) and the '**Object**' prefix hints that it returns an aggregate metadata object, which implicitly contrasts with the field-specific siblings. However, it never explicitly states that this is the tool for all metadata versus get_info_title, get_info_duration, etc., so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of its many siblings such as get_info_title or get_info_viewCount. It states what the tool does but provides no conditions, alternatives, or exclusions to help an agent choose correctly.

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, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose billing (1 credit per call), which is useful behavioral context not available elsewhere. It omits return format, edge cases (videos with no category), and auth needs.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but the '**string**' prefix and 'Group: Specific video Info' are formatting noise rather than useful content, detracting from clarity without adding length problems.

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 read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the core purpose and billing cost are stated. However, without annotations and with no output schema, there is no disclosure of what is returned (a category name? an object?) or edge-case behavior.

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%, and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented with a regex pattern and example. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific resource (YouTube video category) tied to a video, distinguishing it from siblings like get_info_title or get_info_duration. The 'Group: Specific video Info' phrase is filler, and the '**string**' prefix is a type annotation, not purpose.

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. Sibling tools (get_info, get_info_title, etc.) imply a family but the description never says this retrieves one specific field only when a category is needed.

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 burden and does disclose the return type (string) and a cost (1 credit per call). However, it omits other behavioral traits like error behavior, authentication requirements, or whether the value can be null.

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?

Very concise and front-loaded with the return value, followed by grouping and billing. The '**string**' prefix is slightly awkward but overall no wasted words.

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-field getter with rich schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value and cost. It does not restate the input parameter, but the schema covers it fully.

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%, so the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema with format and example. The description adds no further parameter semantics, making the schema the sole source of parameter guidance.

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 returned value: the YouTube channel ID associated with a video. This distinguishes it from sibling fields like get_info_channelName, but it does not explicitly frame the tool as an action or say when to use it over the general get_info.

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 tool versus the many sibling get_info_* tools or get_info itself. It only notes the billing cost, leaving the agent to infer that this retrieves a specific field.

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 full behavioral burden. It discloses billing cost (1 credit) and return type (string), but does not explicitly state read-only status, auth requirements, or side effects. Billing is useful, but gaps remain for a no-annotation 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?

Three short fragments, front-loaded with return type, group, and billing. There is no wasted wording, though the phrasing is terse and fragmentary rather than fully 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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return type and billing information, and the parameter is fully covered by the schema. The absence of usage guidance is the main gap, but the core information an agent needs is present.

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 the single 'id' parameter is fully documented with its expected format. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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?

States the returned resource clearly: 'Channel title for the channel that the video belongs to'. The get_info name implies retrieval and the field differentiates it from siblings like get_info_title or get_info_channelId, but there is no explicit verb.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The only context is 'Group: Specific video Info', which does not help an agent decide between this and sibling tools such as get_info or get_info_channelId.

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 behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the return value is a localized string and that billing is 1 credit per call. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, so several gaps remain.

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 short and front-loads the return type and resource. Every fragment serves a purpose: return type, grouping, and billing. There is no unnecessary prose.

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 field getter with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly: it says what is returned and the per-call cost. Usage versus alternatives is missing, but the core behavioral and output context is present.

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 single required id parameter with full coverage, including a YouTube ID format example. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 returned resource as the localized video description and labels it as part of Specific video Info. This distinguishes it from sibling field getters such as get_info_title and get_info_duration by the field name alone. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with get_info or other alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_info or another sibling. It mentions grouping and billing cost, but not the conditions under which an agent should call this specific field getter. Usage context is only implied by the tool name.

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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return type, ISO 8601 format, and billing cost of 1 credit, but it omits permission requirements, failure behavior, and any read-only/side-effect expectations.

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 short and front-loads the return type and meaning. The group and billing notes are compact, though the markdown formatting and group metadata are not strictly necessary for invocation.

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-field read getter with a complete input schema and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the returned value and format. It could be more complete by clarifying its relationship to sibling get_info tools, but the core calling context is covered.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single required id parameter, including a regex and example. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 identifies the resource and returned field: the video's duration, with an ISO 8601 format. It is understandable apart from the schema, but it does not explicitly differentiate this field-getter from sibling get_info_* tools or state the retrieval verb.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present. The 'Group: Specific video Info' note gives loose context but does not tell the agent when to choose this tool over get_info or other get_info_* siblings.

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 carry behavioral context. It discloses the return type, max-height semantics, group, and per-call billing, but omits read-only confirmation, auth requirements, rate limits, and 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 concise with no filler and includes useful metadata. However, it opens with the return type rather than the retrieval action, which is a minor front-loading weakness.

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-field getter with no output schema, the description adequately explains the returned value and billing cost. It could still add usage routing and read-only reassurance, but it is nearly complete for this complexity level.

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% and the single required id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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 defines the returned value ('the encoded video content's maximum height in pixels') and the tool name/title establish the getter action. It is clear, but it does not explicitly state a retrieval verb or name the sibling get_info_width as the related alternative.

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 when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or prerequisites are provided. The only usage-related note is billing per call, which is a cost consideration rather than routing 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 carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the billing cost (1 credit) and the return map structure, but it does not state read-only status, permission requirements, or any side-effect profile.

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 avoids filler, packing output structure, group, and billing into a few sentences. It is slightly awkwardly front-loaded with a type marker ('**object**') rather than the operation, but it remains efficient.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description explains the return map shape and billing, which is helpful. However, it omits usage guidance against siblings and does not explicitly confirm that the operation is a safe read.

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 the input schema fully documents the required id parameter with format and example. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 identifies the resource as a map of thumbnail images associated with the video, so an agent can infer it retrieves thumbnail data. However, it does not explicitly state the verb 'retrieve/get' or distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_info or get_info_title.

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 such as get_info (which may return multiple fields) or other get_info_* siblings. The description provides no context, exclusions, or routing hints.

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 full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses billing cost (1 credit per call). It says nothing about caching, auth requirements, or whether a missing/private video errors or returns null. The lone billing note is genuinely useful but far short of full disclosure for an unannotated 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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the content is padded with metadata labels ('Group: Specific video Info', 'Billing per call') and the leading bold '**string**' is a stripped return-type token rather than a description. It is terse without being informative.

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 trivial one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description at least signals the return type (a localized string title) and the cost, which is the minimum an agent needs. However, it omits any statement of purpose beyond the field name, leaving overall completeness adequate but thin.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the video ID format and its regex constraint. The description adds nothing about the id parameter, so the 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 text '**string** The localized video title' largely restates the tool name (get_info_title) and reads as a return-type annotation rather than a statement of what the tool does. It does not specify a verb or scope, and gives no way to distinguish it from the eleven sibling get_info_* field getters beyond its name.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as get_info (which presumably returns the full info bundle), and no conditions under which this single-field getter is preferred. The only usage-adjacent content is the credit cost.

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 behavioral burden. It discloses the return type (unsigned long), billing cost (1 credit per call), and a group category. However, it omits read-only implications, error conditions, and auth/rate limit details.

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, front-loaded with the return type and meaning, followed by group and billing metadata. Every element is relevant and no sentence is wasted.

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 a simple getter with one fully documented parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential return value, type, and billing cost. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning read-only nature or error behavior, but it is adequate for this low-complexity 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 fully documents the single 'id' parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 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 resource and returned value: 'The number of times the video has been viewed' with type 'unsigned long'. It distinguishes itself from siblings implicitly through the field name, but does not explicitly differentiate from get_info or other get_info_* tools.

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 such as get_info or other get_info_* tools. The mention of 'Group: Specific video Info' and billing cost provides context but does not indicate selection criteria 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses billing cost per call (1 Credit) and the return type (unsigned integer), but does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits.

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-loads the key return-type detail. It has no filler, though starting with the output type rather than the retrieval purpose is slightly less front-loaded for selecting the tool.

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 a simple single-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently explains what value is returned, its type, grouping, and billing cost. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying that the tool returns this value for the provided video id.

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 the single id parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what is already in the schema, 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 states a specific resource and property: the encoded video content's maximum width in pixels. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_info_height, although it does not explicitly name an alternative or frame the operation as a retrieval verb.

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 includes grouping and billing information but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other get_info_* sibling tools. The implied usage is clear from the name, but no when/when-not or alternative routing is provided.

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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses billing at 10 credits per call and implies a non-destructive link-generation operation, but it does not cover permissions, rate limits, link lifetime, or other operational side effects.

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 two short sentences with no wasted content. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the important billing detail without unnecessary elaboration.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is fairly thin. It states the core output as downloadable links and mentions billing, but it lacks return-format details and operational context that would help an agent call the tool with confidence.

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 91%, so the input schema already explains nearly all parameters in detail. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the high-level muxing purpose, making the baseline score 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 a specific verb and resource: it is a video/audio muxer that generates directly downloadable links from a YouTube video. This clearly separates it from get_info_* metadata tools, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_download or the get_info_* tools. The intended use is only implied by the phrase 'generates directly downloadable links from a Youtube video.'

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