social-media-video-downloader

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for disclosing behavior. It mentions billing (1 Credit per call) but does not state whether it is read-only, any side effects, error handling, or return format. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 efficient, using three short sentences that front-load the primary purpose and include only essential metadata (group, billing). No redundant or vague wording, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description is minimal. It lacks any explanation of the return payload, error conditions, or typical use cases. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide more context about what the agent can expect, which is missing here.

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 both url and renderableFormats well described in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 clearly states the tool retrieves media and metadata for a Facebook post URL, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on profiles, photos, or reels by specifying 'post details' and the 'Facebook-Posts' 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?

The description implies usage for getting details of a specific Facebook post but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving usage context inferred from the tool name and description.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic retrieval action. It does not mention authentication needs, error behavior, response format, or any limitations. The billing note adds non-behavioral context. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant words, plus a group and billing note. It is well-structured and front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. However, it lacks detail on return values or special requirements (e.g., valid URL format, what happens if the profile does not exist). Given the low complexity, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 already describes the single 'url' parameter with an example and clear description, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and identifies the exact resource ('about' information) and target (Facebook profile URL). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_facebook_v3_profile_details and get_facebook_v3_profile_id by focusing on the 'about' section.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where one would prefer a different profile tool. It simply states the action without context for selection.

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 only states 'Retrieves the profile details' and adds meta-information about Group and Billing, without addressing auth requirements, rate limits, output format, or what fields are included. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient depth.

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 descriptive sentence is concise and front-loaded. However, the additional 'Group: Facebook-Profile' and 'Billing per call: 1 Credits' sentences are meta-informational and could be considered filler, which prevents a perfect 5.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate but still leaves 'profile details' undefined. It does not explain what the returned profile details contain, which is important for an agent deciding between this and the closely related profile_about and profile_photos siblings.

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 'url' parameter is documented with a clear description and example). The description text itself adds no extra parameter semantics, but per the rubric's baseline (high schema coverage → 3), this score 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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Retrieves the profile details') and clarifies the input format ('for a given Facebook profile URL'). However, 'profile details' is vague and largely restates the tool name; it does not specify what details are returned (e.g., bio, followers). It is functional but lacks the precision that would help an agent choose it over the many sibling tools like get_facebook_v3_profile_about or get_facebook_v3_profile_photos.

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 versus the numerous siblings (e.g., about, photos, reels). It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases beyond restating the tool's function.

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 burden for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Retrieves', which implies a read operation, but does not mention idempotency, error handling, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The additional billing and group metadata do not disclose 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 essential description is one concise sentence that front-loads the primary action. However, it includes metadata ('Group: Facebook-Profile' and 'Billing per call') that is not crucial for tool selection, adding slight noise, but it remains compact and clear.

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 such a simple tool, the description is minimal but lacks critical context: it does not specify the return value format (e.g., numeric ID, string), how errors are handled, or any edge cases. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify the expected output to be complete.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'url' with a description and example. The description just repeats 'Facebook profile URL' without adding extra meaning like format expectations, validation rules, or behavior on invalid URLs. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter.

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 tool retrieves the profile ID for a Facebook profile URL, specifying the exact resource (profile ID) and distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch other profile aspects (about, details, photos, reels).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or mention that it might be a first step before using other profile tools. The description only states the function without any usage context.

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 only rephrases the tool's purpose and adds Group/billing metadata, without covering access requirements, rate limits, or response shape. For a no-annotation tool, this level of transparency is minimal.

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 three short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and supporting metadata (Group, billing) in compact following sentences. Every sentence earns its place and there is no unnecessary wording.

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 retrieval tool, the description is nearly sufficient: it states what is retrieved and what input is required. However, the ambiguous meaning of 'photos', the lack of any output format, and no mention of profile visibility requirements leave a moderate contextual gap. With no output schema or annotations, slightly more detail would make it fully complete.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single `url` parameter, so the schema already explains the required input. The description's phrase 'given Facebook profile URL' merely restates the schema meaning and adds no extra format constraints or accepted variants beyond the schema's example. 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('photos from a given Facebook profile URL'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like profile_about or profile_reels. The title reinforces the same. A minor ambiguity remains about whether 'photos' means avatar/profile pictures or all posted photos.

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 this tool should be used instead of sibling tools. It only states the action and adds Group/billing metadata, with no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions. An agent selecting among the many Facebook-Profile tools gets no decision support.

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 exist, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Retrieves the reels' with no mention of authentication requirements, rate limits, output format, or potential errors, which is minimal for a retrieval 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence conveying the core purpose, followed by two brief metadata lines (group and billing). There is no unnecessary verbosity or redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details about what exactly is returned (e.g., reel IDs, metadata) and any prerequisites. Given the lack of annotations, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 already provides a full description and example for the 'url' parameter (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what is already in the schema, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool retrieves 'reels from a given Facebook profile URL' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_facebook_v3_profile_about and get_facebook_v3_profile_photos which target different content types.

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 by the name and description – it is for fetching reels from a Facebook profile. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or when not to use it (e.g., public profiles only).

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 transparency burden. It discloses that the operation retrieves data (implying a read operation) and mentions billing per call, which is useful. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior for invalid shortcodes.

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 three short, information-dense sentences: function, group, and billing. No filler or redundant content.

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 retrieval tool with complete schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but not rich. It explains the core function and billing but lacks details on return value, limitations, or when to prefer other Instagram tools.

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 already provides complete descriptions and examples for both parameters (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond noting the shortcode, 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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieves' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the media post' for a given Instagram shortcode. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on Instagram media posts rather than profiles or other platforms, though it does not explicitly name 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 versus alternatives. It only states the function and billing, with no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools.

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 only restates the tool's core action and adds billing/group metadata; it does not disclose what fields the returned profile contains, whether the username is required to be an exact handle, how errors are handled, or any rate-limit or auth considerations.

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 core behavior. The added group and billing metadata is minor but not harmful, and the text avoids unnecessary detail. It is concise though not deeply 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?

With only one required parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable, but it remains vague about what 'profile details' includes and does not clarify expected return structure. The lack of annotations means more contextual information would be useful, especially for an external Instagram API 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?

The schema already documents the single username parameter with a clear description ('The Instagram username to look up'), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description only repeats this concept, so it adds no meaningful semantic value beyond the schema.

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 tool as retrieving profile details for a given Instagram username, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_instagram_v3_user_profile_id_from_username, but the focus on 'profile details' versus 'profile ID' is reasonably 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?

The description implies the tool should be used when an Instagram username is available and profile details are needed. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no alternative tool references, and no mention of prerequisites or limitations.

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, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It mentions billing cost, but not error behavior, rate limits, or whether the username must be exact. For a simple read operation, this is minimal but not misleading.

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, with two short sentences containing no redundancy. It efficiently communicates the action and billing, though the additional billing info is not directly beneficial for tool selection.

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 lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks depth: it does not specify what happens if the username is invalid, whether the ID is numeric, or any potential failures. It meets minimum viability for a basic 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% for the single username parameter, so the schema already fully describes it. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 function: retrieving the user ID for an Instagram username. It distinguishes from siblings like get_instagram_v3_user_profile_details by its narrow scope (ID only), though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 siblings such as get_instagram_v3_user_profile_details or other platform ID lookups. The context implies a direct ID lookup, but no explicit when/when-not alternatives are given.

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 burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'retrieves media and metadata' without specifying what media or metadata includes, potential errors, authentication needs, or rate limits. The added 'Group' and 'Billing' info are not 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 core sentence is concise and front-loaded with the primary function. However, it includes extra non-behavioral fields ('Group' and 'Billing per call') that are not strictly part of a behavioral description, slightly diluting focus, 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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient to fully inform the agent about return contents or constraints. It is vague about what 'media and metadata' entails, and does not clarify URL format requirements or error conditions, making it incomplete for practical use.

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 already provides a description for the URL parameter, and the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond restating that it's a 'given TikTok post URL'. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the description does not go beyond that.

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 action ('Retrieves media and metadata') and the target resource ('TikTok post URL'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_tiktok_v3_user_details which target user details. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for post details only, nor does it reference sibling tools or conditions. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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?

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any error scenarios, authentication requirements, or side effects. The only additional information is billing and group metadata, which are not 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 two short sentences: the first states the core action, and the second adds metadata. It is front-loaded and every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description is minimal and functional, but it does not specify what 'profile details' includes, which could be important for an agent to know if the return meets its needs. Given the lack of output schema, more specificity would improve completeness.

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% for the single parameter 'url', which includes a description and example. The description also repeats the URL context. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; description adds no significant extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Retrieves the profile details for a given TikTok user URL', which clearly identifies the action (retrieve), the resource (profile details), and the input (TikTok user URL). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_tiktok_v3_post_details by specifying 'user' and the platform 'TikTok'.

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 implies usage when you have a TikTok user URL, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference alternative tools. It provides clear context for the intended scenario but lacks exclusions or guidance on choosing between similar tools.

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 burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Retrieves' but fails to mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or what 'detailed information' includes. This is minimal disclosure.

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 a single sentence plus two short metadata fragments. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no filler. While concise, it sacrifices informative depth.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema, the description should hint at what fields are returned. 'Detailed information' is vague and does not specify whether it includes statistics, branding, or other channel metadata. Also lacks any usage constraints, making the description incomplete for an agent to fully understand the return value.

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 both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The description does not add any new parameter semantics, but per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents all parameters.

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 action ('Retrieves detailed information') and the resource ('a specific YouTube channel'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve channel videos, playlists, or posts. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the verb and resource are specific enough.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `get_youtube_v3_channel_videos` or `get_youtube_v3_channel_id_from_handle`. The description only includes group and billing metadata, offering no context about usage scenarios, prerequisites, 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 burden. It states 'Retrieves', implying a safe read operation, but does not disclose potential error behavior (e.g., invalid handle) or any side effects. The billing note adds context but not behavioral detail. A basic getter might be acceptable, but the transparency is minimal.

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 one concise sentence that communicates the core action and includes an example. It also mentions group and billing details without bloat. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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 getter with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it states the return value (channel ID) implicitly and the input. It could mention error handling, but given the low complexity, the information provided is adequate for an agent to use the tool 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?

The schema already provides full coverage for the single parameter 'handle' (type, example, description). The description repeats the example and adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema description coverage.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Retrieves the channel ID for a given YouTube handle', with a concrete example ('@MrBeast'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other resources like videos, posts, or playlists.

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 purpose implicitly defines when to use it: whenever you have a YouTube handle and need its channel ID. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the context is unambiguous and sufficient for a simple lookup tool.

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 the behavioral burden. It correctly signals a read-style retrieval operation and even includes billing cost, but it does not describe pagination behavior, output format, potential errors, authentication requirements, or rate limits.

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-loaded with the core behavior. The group and billing metadata is compact and useful, though not strictly tied to purpose; no filler or redundancy inflates the text.

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?

The tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description alone is not fully complete. It explains what is fetched but not the shape of the response or pagination semantics beyond of the schema; however, the required parameters and enum values are sufficiently clear for basic invocation.

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 structured parameter documentation already explains channelId, contentType, lang, and nextToken. The description adds no significant value beyond restating content types already present in the input schema.

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 uses a specific verb ("Retrieves") and clearly names the exact resource types (playlists, releases, podcasts) scoped to a specific YouTube channel. This differentiates it well from sibling tools like get_youtube_v3_channel_videos and get_youtube_v3_playlist.

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 use case is implied by the description: use this tool when you need playlists, releases, or podcasts from a particular channel. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, mention exclusions, or indicate when a different fetch/search tool would be more appropriate.

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. It mentions pagination with nextToken and billing cost, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (likely, but not stated), any rate limits, auth requirements, or what happens with invalid channel IDs. The description adds some behavioral context (pagination, billing) but lacks fuller transparency.

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 concise with two sentences plus metadata. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes a functional detail about pagination. The 'Group' and 'Billing' lines are extra metadata that could be considered useful but are not strictly required; overall it's efficiently written with no waste.

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 the tool complexity (3 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description covers the core action and pagination but does not address potential edge cases like empty results, error behavior, or the structure of returned posts. Without an output schema, the agent may not know what a 'post' contains (e.g., video, comment, text) or how to interpret the response. Adequate but with gaps.

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 all three parameters (lang, channelId, nextToken) have explanations in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it clarifies that nextToken is for pagination, which is already implied by the schema. However, it does not add value beyond schema descriptions, so a 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 states a clear purpose: 'Retrieves posts from a specific YouTube channel.' The resource (channel posts) and action (retrieve) are specific enough, and the sibling tool set includes other YouTube channel tools like get_youtube_v3_channel_details and get_youtube_v3_channel_videos, but the description doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings. It's clear but lacks a distinguishing scope statement.

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 minimal guidance: pagination via nextToken is mentioned. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. While the context is clear, the description does not indicate when this tool should be chosen over siblings like get_youtube_v3_post_details or search tools.

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 transparency burden. It states 'Retrieves' (non-destructive) but omits mention of pagination (despite a nextToken parameter), potential output size, or any side effects. The minimal description leaves room for ambiguity.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy or irrelevant details.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain the response format, pagination behavior, or how results are structured. This lack of context makes it incomplete for understanding the full 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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), and the tool description adds no extra meaning. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3; the description does not enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 tool retrieves videos, shorts, or livestreams from a specific YouTube channel, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle playlists, posts, or channel details.

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 implies usage for fetching video content from a channel, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_youtube_v3_channel_playlists or get_youtube_v3_channel_posts. However, the specificity of content types (videos, shorts, livestreams) provides adequate 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states 'Retrieves' (implying a safe read) and mentions billing per call, but does not describe result format, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or any limitations.

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 core description is one sentence, front-loaded with the key information. The 'Group' and 'Billing' sentences are brief and add cost context, but could be considered metadata; overall the description is tight.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what the returned videos contain, potential pagination via nextToken, or any usage conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a 3-parameter 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 already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond restating the 'hashtag' concept.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('videos') with a clear hashtag scope, distinguishing it from search-based siblings like get_youtube_v3_search_video. However, it lacks an explicit statement of when to choose this over the search tools, preventing a top score.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the description only states the function. It doesn't mention exclusions (e.g., when not to use hashtag search) or alternative tools.

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 transparency burden. It discloses pagination ('paginated list of its videos') and billing information, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or the exact structure of the returned data. This is some added behavioral context, but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose, followed by group and billing metadata. Every sentence provides useful information with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool has no output schema and only a high-level description of return content. It mentions the key behaviors (playlist info and paginated videos) but does not detail what fields are included or how optional parameters like lang and countryCode affect results. Adequate, but there are gaps for a data-fetching 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% for all 4 parameters, so the schema already documents the meaning of lang, nextToken, playlistId, and countryCode. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Extracts') and clearly identifies the resource ('playlist information and a paginated list of its videos'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_youtube_v3_channel_playlists (which lists playlists) and get_youtube_v3_search_playlist (which searches for playlists).

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. However, the clear verb and resource imply use when a playlist ID is known and you need its details and videos. No explicit guidance is given, so it falls under 'implied usage'.

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 burden. It mentions billing per call (1 credit) and indicates pagination via nextToken, but does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, or error scenarios. This is typical for a read operation, but not fully transparent.

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 concise (two sentences plus group/billing metadata) and front-loads the core purpose. It contains no fluff or redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 the schema and description, an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It covers inputs, sorting, pagination, and cost. It does not describe output structure, but that is not required since no output schema exists. The only minor gap is explicit guidance on when to prefer this over video comments, but it is inferable.

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 already provides descriptions for all 5 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal new information—only reinforcing sorting and pagination. Since schema coverage is full, the baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 primary function: 'Retrieves comments for a YouTube post' with sorting and pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle video comments or other post-related actions.

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 mentions sorting and pagination capabilities, but does not explicitly compare alternatives like video comments. However, the name and context make the intended use obvious enough for an agent to select it when post comments are 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, permissions, or read-only nature. The description is silent on these aspects, offering no behavioral transparency. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs a read operation but does not state so.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly communicates the core purpose without any unnecessary details or repetition. It is well-structured and to the point.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description is not required to explain return values. However, it does not provide any contextual information about the nature of the returned data, likely edge cases, or relationship to other tools. For a simple fetch, it is adequate but could be enhanced with a brief note on the expected output scope.

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 descriptions for parameters are present but minimal, e.g., 'The ID of the YouTube post.' Since the schema covers all parameters (100% coverage), the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 action (retrieves) and the resource (detailed information about a specific YouTube community post), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_youtube_v3_video_details or get_youtube_v3_channel_details. However, it does not specify what 'detailed information' includes, so it falls short of a 5.

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 compared to alternatives such as get_youtube_v3_post_comments or get_youtube_v3_channel_posts. It does not mention prerequisites or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only includes operational metadata (group, billing) and does not disclose read-only nature, pagination behavior, or any limitations. The nextToken parameter hints at pagination but is not explained.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose in one sentence. There is no redundant information or fluff, making it easy to scan.

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 the tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain result format, pagination usage, or how to filter effectively. However, the schema covers parameter details, so the description is not wholly inadequate but could provide more context for a complex search 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 already documents all parameters effectively. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what is in the schema, which meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Search across all YouTube content types' which is a specific verb (search) and resource (all YouTube content), and it distinguishes from sibling targeted search tools like search_video and search_channel.

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 implies use for all content types but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the targeted search tools (e.g., 'use search_video for only video results'). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and adds billing/group info, but does not describe return format, pagination behavior (despite a nextToken parameter), whether results are limited, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond 'it searches'.

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: two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes minimal operational context (group, billing). It is appropriately sized, earning a high score on conciseness.

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 the tool has 8 parameters, a pagination token, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the query semantics, how filters like duration/features interact, or what the response contains. The billing/group info is minor context but does not fill the gap. This is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 already documents all parameters with descriptions and enums. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline for this dimension. It does not explain parameter relationships or best practices, so it stays at baseline 3.

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 tool's purpose: 'Searches for channels on YouTube.' It uses a specific verb (searches) and a resource (channels on YouTube), and distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_video or search_playlist by explicitly mentioning 'channels'. This is unambiguous and differentiated.

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 versus other search-related siblings (e.g., get_youtube_v3_search_video, get_youtube_v3_search_playlist). It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Searches for movies' but does not disclose any specifics about output format, pagination, rate limits, authentication, or any side effects. For a search tool, this is minimally transparent.

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-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The additional metadata (Group, Billing) is tangentially useful but does not inflate the text unnecessarily. It is concise and scannable.

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 the tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient to understand the tool's full behavior. It does not explain how parameter combinations work, the meaning of 'movies' (e.g., does it filter by category?), or what the returned results look like. The schema covers parameters but the description lacks an integrative overview.

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 each parameter having its own description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning or clarification beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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: 'Searches for movies on YouTube.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_youtube_v3_search_video (general videos) and get_youtube_v3_search_channel (channels). The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states the action without mentioning use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to the generic search or other search-type tools. The name implies the scope but the description adds no explicit direction.

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 bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'Searches for playlists' and mentions billing, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, any required authentication, or potential side effects. The name implies read-only, but transparency is minimal.

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 concise at one sentence, but it includes irrelevant metadata like 'Group: YouTube-Search' and 'Billing per call: 1 Credits' which do not aid the agent in selection or invocation. The core purpose is stated first, but the extra info adds noise without value.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal context beyond the schema. It does not explain pagination behavior, result ordering nuances, or any edge cases. The description lacks sufficient guidance for a tool with this complexity, especially given the absence of annotations.

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 covers 100% of the 8 parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The schema already explains each field, including enums and deprecation notes, providing sufficient semantics.

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 that the tool searches for playlists on YouTube, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_youtube_v3_search_video or get_youtube_v3_search_channel. The verb 'searches' and resource 'playlists' are unambiguous.

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 versus alternatives. While the name suggests it is for playlists specifically, there is no explicit mention of exclusions or comparisons with other search tools, such as get_youtube_v3_search for general search.

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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it retrieves suggestions, without mentioning side effects, rate limits, return format, or any other behavioral details. For a read operation, it fails to convey anything beyond the obvious, leaving the agent with incomplete information about expected 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 brief and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. It is efficient and wastes no words. However, it includes metadata about 'Group' and 'Billing' that, while harmless, could be considered extraneous. Overall, it is concise and well-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?

The tool lacks an output schema, so the description should clarify what it returns, but it does not. It also fails to provide usage context or alternative guidance. While the input schema is complete, the overall context is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and applicability, especially given the presence of many sibling tools.

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 provides full descriptions for all three parameters, including examples (e.g., 'how to c' and 'how'). The description adds no additional semantic information about these parameters, so it earns the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage. The schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: it retrieves search suggestions from YouTube based on a query. This specific verb and resource distinguish it from sibling search tools like get_youtube_v3_search, which return actual search results. The mention of 'search suggestions' is unambiguous.

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 implies usage through its name and purpose but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_youtube_v3_search. It lacks clear guidance on when not to use it or what differentiates it from other search tools. The usage context is implied, not spelled out.

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 for behavioral transparency. While it mentions billing (1 credit per call), it omits key behaviors such as pagination via nextToken, filtering capabilities, result format, or any side effects. The description is essentially a one-liner with no operational detail.

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 brief—one sentence plus metadata—and is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it includes extra metadata ('Group: YouTube-Search', 'Billing per call') that is not directly relevant to usage, slightly reducing structural clarity. Still, it is concise and not verbose.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for complete operational understanding. It fails to mention pagination, sorting, filtering options, or any caveats (e.g., deprecated sortBy). The one-line summary is far too sparse for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all 8 parameters have descriptive entries. The description text itself does not add any parameter semantics beyond 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 clearly states the tool searches for videos on YouTube, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_channel, search_movie, and search_playlist. The verb 'Searches' and resource 'videos' are explicit.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention that other search tools exist for channels, playlists, etc., or give any when/not conditions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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 present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only states the basic operation plus sorting/pagination. It omits important behaviors such as retrieving replies via commentId, pagination semantics, output shape, or access requirements.

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 core behavior is stated in a single front-loaded sentence. The trailing group and billing notes are small but arguably useful operational metadata, though the group information largely repeats the tool naming convention.

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 moderately simple read-only comments tool, the description plus fully described schema is minimally adequate for selection and invocation. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention the commentId reply mode or pagination details, leaving gaps.

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 already explains all five parameters (videoId, commentId, sortBy, nextToken, lang). The description adds only a high-level mention of sorting/pagination, not enough to raise above the baseline.

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 opens with the specific action 'Retrieves comments for a YouTube video' and explicitly mentions sorting and pagination, making the resource and operation unambiguous. The 'video' scope differentiates it from sibling tools like get_youtube_v3_post_comments.

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 provided; it simply states what the tool does. The sibling get_youtube_v3_post_comments exists but is never contrasted, so the agent gets no explicit guidance on choosing between comment tools.

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. It discloses that the operation is extractive (read-only) and mentions 'audio merging capabilities' plus billing costs. However, it doesn't discuss rate limits, authentication requirements, or any potential side effects, which is a modest gap for a read 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?

The description is concise, consisting of two sentences and a group tag. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the group classification and billing note without any redundant phrases. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

Despite having 8 parameters and no output schema, the description summarizes the main return categories (metadata, formats, download links, server-rendered options). It doesn't explicitly mention transcript retrieval or transparently cover all features, but 'comprehensive information' plus the rich schema provide sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's scope.

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 all 8 parameters, including enums, defaults, and examples. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, 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 clearly states the tool 'Extracts comprehensive information about a YouTube video' and enumerates concrete outputs: metadata, formats, download links, and server-rendered video options. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle posts, channels, or playlists.

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 clear context that this tool is for extracting YouTube video details, which differentiates it from channel/playlist/search tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or explain when not to use this tool versus others, such as when a simpler search might suffice.

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