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.