video_details_v2

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. However, it reveals nothing about the tool's behavior—such as whether it's a read-only operation, what data it returns, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about how the tool operates.

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 concise with only three words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes its limited space on a tautological restatement of the name without adding any value. True conciseness balances brevity with usefulness, which this description fails to achieve.

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 tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it differs from the sibling 'video_details', or any behavioral aspects. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate by providing essential context, but it offers none, making it inadequate for effective tool 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%, meaning the input schema fully documents both parameters (video_id and hl). The description adds no additional semantic context about these parameters, such as explaining their purpose beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without parameter info in 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 'Video Details (v2)' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name with a version suffix. It provides no information about what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieves metadata, statistics, or other details about a video), nor does it differentiate this v2 version from the sibling 'video_details' tool. This fails to communicate any specific action or purpose.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling 'video_details' tool, explain why v2 exists, or provide any context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Users are left with no information to make informed decisions about tool selection.

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