video_streaming_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Video Streaming Data' reveals nothing about whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, what format the data is returned in, whether there are rate limits, or any other behavioral characteristics. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about how the tool behaves.

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 just three words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't front-load essential information and fails to communicate the tool's purpose. Every word should earn its place, but these three words provide almost no useful information.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a completely vague description, this is severely incomplete. The agent cannot understand what the tool does, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or what results it produces. Even with a simple single-parameter schema, the description fails to provide the minimal context needed for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. However, with 100% schema description coverage (the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'Video ID'), the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't compensate for any gaps, but none exist in the schema documentation.

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 Streaming Data' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without specifying what action the tool performs. It doesn't indicate whether this retrieves, analyzes, processes, or manages video streaming data. Compared to sibling tools like 'video_details' or 'video_comments', this description fails to distinguish the tool's specific function.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple video-related sibling tools (video_details, video_details_v2, video_comments, video_related_contents), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be selected over those other options.

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