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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), but the description adds real value: it discloses scheduled-video behavior (release date and Coming Soon flag), that collections are returned as a list because a video can belong to several, and the API-key/access requirement.

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?

Front-loaded with the returned fields, followed by conditional behavior and auth. Mostly efficient, though the trailing clause 'because one video can sit in several' is slightly conversational filler that could be trimmed.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably well by listing the fields and edge cases (scheduled videos, multiple collections). Auth requirements are also stated, leaving little an agent needs missing.

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 single video_id parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Video ID from list_videos'). The description adds no syntax or sourcing detail beyond that, 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 states a specific resource (a single video) and enumerates exactly what it returns: title, description, tags, categories, publication status, and containing collections. This clearly separates it from the sibling list_videos, which is a bulk listing tool.

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 is implied — fetch one video's details — and the schema notes the ID comes 'from list_videos.' However, the description never explicitly states when to use this versus list_videos or other video tools, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the API-key note.

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