YouTube video data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Structured data', hinting at a clean output, but does not disclose error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens for invalid/unavailable videos. This is a minimal disclosure for a data retrieval tool.

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 concise sentence that includes the resource type and key data fields. It is front-loaded with the key term 'YouTube video data' and has no wasted words.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a basic example of fields but is not fully complete. It could mention handling of live streams, age-restricted content, or pointers to sibling tools for other YouTube data types. The lack of an output schema means the description should more thoroughly describe the return values.

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 input schema is fully documented (100% coverage) with the url parameter described as 'YouTube video URL'. The description adds context about the type of data returned (views, likes, etc.) but does not add further meaning about the parameter itself. The schema already covers the semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Structured YouTube video data' and lists specific fields (views, likes, description, tags), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose as retrieving metadata for a YouTube video. It distinguishes from sibling tools like youtube_profiles and youtube_comments by focusing on 'video data', though it lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'Fetch'.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that for profile data or comments one should use other tools, nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or scenarios. Usage is only implied by the resource type in the name and description.

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