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.