video_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals that this is a single metadata pass, returns JSON, and reports known failures as a status:failed payload. This is strong behavioral context, though it does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or the exact output schema.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core action and metadata fields are front-loaded, and the failure contract follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter metadata tool with an output schema, the description covers the return type, the data fields, and failure modes. It is nearly complete; the only notable gap is explicit guidance on how this tool fits into a workflow with the sibling transcript and audio tools.

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 input schema only defines 'url' as a string with 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds that the URL is a video URL and that unsupported URLs produce a known failure. This is minimally adequate for a single self-explanatory parameter, but it does not specify accepted URL formats or platform restrictions.

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 ('Resolve') with a clear resource ('video URL') and enumerates the exact metadata returned: platform, title, duration, uploader, caption tracks, and audio formats. It is functionally distinct from siblings like fetch_transcript and download_audio because it is explicitly a metadata-only pass.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when an agent needs video metadata rather than transcripts or audio. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the relationship to list_available_transcripts and download_audio.

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