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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that this submits an asynchronous 'Builder task' rather than returning data inline, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it omits what the submission returns, whether polling is required, and any rate/permission constraints.

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 opening is keyword-stuffed: 'YouTube 视频基本信息、YouTube 视频信息、YouTube 视频详情、YouTube product、视频基础资料' are near-synonyms stacked for trigger matching, wasting most of the text. The one genuinely informative sentence (the Builder task and fixed collector id) is buried after the 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 destructive, non-idempotent task-submission tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the async workflow (task id returned, then scraper_task_status/result used to fetch output) and what it produces. It only names the collector identifier, leaving the agent unable to close the loop after 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 all five parameters are already documented with defaults, enums, and a pattern. The description adds nothing about individual parameters, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 action (submitting a YouTube video basic-information collection Builder task) and pins the collector identifier to youtube_product_by-id. However, the name 'youtube_product' conflicts with the described scope ('视频基本信息'), and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like youtube_video or youtube_video_post, leaving the agent unsure which video tool to pick.

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 first sentence supplies trigger conditions (user needs video info combined with verbs like 采集/抓取/爬取/获取/提取), which is genuine usage guidance. But it offers no when-not-to-use and no routing against the many overlapping video siblings, so selection remains ambiguous.

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