video_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 adds useful context about quota costs (1 unit base, with additional costs for multi-id requests and extend options), which isn't in the schema. However, it lacks details on error handling, response format, or performance implications, leaving gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that efficiently states the purpose and includes critical quota cost information. It's front-loaded with the core function and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers quota costs but misses behavioral aspects like response structure, error cases, or prerequisites. For a tool with rich input options and no output schema, more context would be helpful to guide effective usage.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify parameter interactions or usage examples), resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all the details of the YouTube video'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'shorts_details' or 'metadata_update', which might also retrieve video information in different contexts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'shorts_details' for shorts videos or 'metadata_update' for updates. It mentions quota costs but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over other video-related tools in the sibling list.

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