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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: dislikes are only available in `raw`, `commentCount` is always null, and the call costs 1 credit. The cost and null-field disclosures are exactly the kind of context an agent cannot get from the schema, though the privacy/'public only' failure mode is left unstated.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the resource, then field list, then quirks and cost. Every clause carries a distinct fact (raw dislikes, null commentCount, credit cost) with no filler.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and flags the two anomalies an agent would otherwise misread. Remaining gap is minor: nothing about error/not-found behavior or what `raw` contains structurally.

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 only 50%: `url` is documented in the schema (URL or bare video id) but `cache_max_age` is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific resource (a single public BitChute video) and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows this is the single-video lookup rather than a search or channel listing. It never names the sibling it contrasts with (bitchute_search, bitchute_channelVideos), so differentiation is inferred from the field list rather than stated.

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 only implied: 'A public BitChute video' plus a required url/id parameter signals 'call this when you already have a video reference.' There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion of search/channel tools, and no note about behavior when the video is private or removed.

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