youtube_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves metadata and captions, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not address error handling (e.g., invalid video ID) or rate limits, but for a simple retrieval tool, this is mostly sufficient.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the verb 'Retrieve'. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description specifies return fields (title, description, stats, captions), which is helpful. However, it could be more complete by detailing the format of captions or stats, but it's sufficient for a basic 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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'id'. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema's description ('YouTube video ID (11-char code)'), but the parameter is self-explanatory, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: retrieve video metadata and captions. It specifies exact fields returned (title, description, stats, captions) and distinguishes from sibling tools like youtube_captions and youtube_transcript which focus on captions alone.

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?

Usage context is implied through the description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., youtube_captions for just captions). No prerequisites or limitations are mentioned.

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