get-video-info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It conveys a meaningful behavioral trait — the operation extracts metadata rather than downloading the video — but it does not disclose that a network request is made, what fields are returned, or potential failure conditions. Some context is provided, but not the full picture.

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 description is a single front-loaded, ten-word sentence that contains both the core action and the key constraint. Nothing is wasted; every phrase contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 low-complexity, one-parameter tool the description is sufficient to make a valid call (provide a YouTube URL). However, with no output schema and no annotation, it does not specify what 'detailed information' includes, which leaves the agent without a way to predict the response or distinguish it confidently from sibling capabilities.

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 the schema already documents the single url parameter fully. The description restates the URL concept without adding format constraints, accepted URL variants, or other semantic detail, so it adds little on top of the schema — 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Extract') and identifies both the target resource (a YouTube video URL) and the operation outcome ('detailed information'), and adds the useful qualifier 'without downloading.' It falls short of a 5 because it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools get-video-subtitles and get-top-comments, and 'detailed information' is left underspecified.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus get-video-subtitles or get-top-comments, and no when-not-to-use conditions. 'Without downloading' only implies a boundary; it does not state selection criteria or alternatives.

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