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.