video_details

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. 'Video Details' reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it makes external API calls, rate limits, error behavior, or what kind of data is returned. This is completely inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

While technically concise with only two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to communicate essential information that would help an AI agent understand and use the tool correctly, making it inefficient despite its short length.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description 'Video Details' is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or how it differs from similar tools, leaving critical gaps for agent understanding.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all three parameters (id, hl, gl) are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value.

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 'Video Details' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without specifying what action is performed. It doesn't indicate whether this retrieves, analyzes, or displays video details, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'video_details_v2' or 'video_streaming_data'.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple video-related sibling tools available (including 'video_details_v2'), there's no indication of the specific use case, prerequisites, or differentiation between this tool and others.

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