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.