get_video_details_price_1_3

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions fetching details but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or quota implications (e.g., from 'urlAccess' parameter). The description lacks behavioral context beyond the basic operation, leaving gaps for an agent to understand usage 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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently lists the key resources fetched. It avoids unnecessary words and front-loads the core action ('fetches full details'), making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more concise by omitting redundant phrasing like 'as well as'.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or behavioral traits like quota usage mentioned in the schema. For a tool with rich parameters and no structured safety hints, the description should provide more context to guide effective use.

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%, providing detailed documentation for all parameters (e.g., 'videoId', 'urlAccess' with quota unit info, defaults for 'lang', 'videos', 'audios'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'fetches full details of a YouTube video' with specific resources listed (URLs of videos, audios, thumbnails, subtitles, related videos, and playlists). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_channel_details' or 'get_playlist_details' by focusing on videos, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_related_videos_and_playlists' which might overlap in functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, compare to sibling tools like 'list_related_videos_and_playlists' or 'search_for_videos_movies', or specify scenarios where this detailed fetch is preferred over simpler options. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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