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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network scope are covered. The description adds useful context beyond them: that only public metadata is returned (no auth-gated data) and that each call costs 1 credit, which lets an agent budget calls. It says nothing about caching behavior or failure modes for bad URLs.

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, purpose front-loaded, field list and cost in sequence. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields verbatim.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, so an agent knows what to expect. The remaining gaps are the undocumented cache_max_age parameter and the absence of any error behavior for malformed URLs or missing videos.

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?

With only 50% schema coverage, the description needs to compensate for undocumented parameters but adds nothing. The required url is fully documented in the schema with two accepted formats, but cache_max_age has no description in either place, leaving an agent guessing at its format and effect.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Video details ... public metadata for a PeerTube video') and enumerates the returned fields (views, likes, comments, duration, tags, publish date, channel). This distinguishes it implicitly from peertube_search, peertube_channel and peertube_comments, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus peertube_search or peertube_transcript, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only conditional information is the credit cost, which is billing, not usage guidance.

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