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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the substantive behavioral fact for this tool — precisely what content is and isn't returned (transcript text excluded) — and 'Get' implies a safe read. It omits secondary traits such as permission requirements or error behavior when an ID/slug is invalid.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and content scope before the workflow guidance. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return payload — and it does so field by field, including the notable omission of raw transcript. For a single-parameter read tool this is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 100% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 11-char example and slug alternative. The description restates that same duality ('either an 11-character YouTube video ID or a BuildFeed article slug') without adding format, validation, or failure semantics, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get full detail for a single BuildFeed video') and enumerates the returned content: description, channel info, stats, categories, topics, TLDR, key takeaways. It also distinguishes itself from get_transcript by explicitly noting the raw transcript text is excluded, so an agent can tell it apart from a sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear placement in a workflow: 'Use this after search_videos/list_videos to drill into one specific result,' naming both discovery siblings explicitly. It stops short of a direct negative routing statement (e.g., 'for transcript text use get_transcript'), though the exclusion note hints at it.

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