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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses that the data is public (no auth implied), that the call costs 1 credit, and flags the non-obvious location of dislike counts in `raw.dislikeCount`. It does not cover failure behavior for invalid URLs or unknown claim ids, which keeps it below 5.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, return fields second, the raw.dislikeCount quirk and credit cost last. No filler and nothing is buried.

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 by enumerating the fields an agent will get back, plus cost. The remaining gap is the undocumented `cache_max_age` control, which an agent cannot reason about from either structured field or prose.

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 description says nothing about either parameter. The `url` parameter is well documented in the schema, but `cache_max_age` has no description in the schema or in the description text, leaving half the parameter surface undocumented and requiring the description to compensate — which it does not.

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 names the resource ('an Odysee video') and enumerates exactly what metadata is returned (title, description, duration, tags, release date, channel, counts), which separates it from odysee_channel, odysee_channelVideos, odysee_comments and odysee_search. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the single-video lookup scope 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for fetching one video's metadata, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus odysee_search (to find a video) or odysee_channelVideos (to list a channel's uploads). No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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