shorts_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes quota costs (1 unit for video info, 2 units for suggested info, +1 for extend/cache bypass), which is crucial operational context. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format details.

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 reasonably concise but has structural issues. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but the second sentence is repetitive and awkwardly phrased ('Quota cost is 1 unit for Shorts Video Info Quota cost is 2 units for suggested Shorts Video Info'). Some sentences could be more efficiently structured.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and quota information but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what information is returned, how results are structured, error handling, or authentication requirements. The quota cost details are helpful but insufficient for full operational 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions quota costs for 'extend' and 'X-CACHEBYPASS' parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or usage patterns.

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 retrieves YouTube Shorts video information or suggested Shorts video information, specifying the verb 'get' and resource 'Shorts video info'. It distinguishes between two modes (specific video vs. suggested videos) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'shorts_sequence' or 'channel_shorts'.

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 implies when to use each mode (by specifying the 'id' parameter options: video ID for specific info or 'WHATTOWATCH' for suggested videos), but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'shorts_sequence' or 'video_details'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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