youtube_video_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description is consistent with those annotations but adds little behavioral detail beyond the three views; it does not mention pagination, cursor usage, rate limits, or other operational behaviors.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

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 seven parameters, a nested options object, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain how the views differ operationally, what cursor-based pagination means, how limit and max_chars apply, or what values video should take.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for seven undocumented parameters. It only loosely maps to the 'view' parameter by naming metadata, transcript, and comments, while leaving video ID format, limit, cursor, locale, options, and max_chars unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one video's metadata, transcript page, or comments page'), clearly identifying what the tool operates on. It also differs from sibling tools by restricting scope to a single video rather than search results, channels, or playlists.

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 usage for a specific video when metadata, transcript, or comments are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over youtube_search, youtube_channel_get, or youtube_playlist_get. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance, only the resource scope.

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