YouTube Metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it discloses the Decodo Web Scraping API backend, the `youtube_metadata` target, JSON return format with example fields, and a docs link. It could still say more about failure behavior for invalid/private IDs.

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 plus a docs URL, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the usage cue second. The parenthetical target name is slightly redundant with the tool name but does name the API parameter.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming example fields (title, channel, views, description) and the JSON format. An agent has enough to select and call it; only edge-case behavior for private/blocked videos is unstated.

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% and the single `query` param is documented with an example ID in the schema. The description only reinforces that the input is a video ID ('by video ID'), adding no format or validation detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a YouTube video's metadata by video ID') and names the backend target, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. The 'by video ID' scoping implicitly separates it from youtube_channel and youtube_search, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Use it when you know the video ID and need details about the video' gives a clear positive trigger. It does not state exclusions or point to youtube_subtitles/youtube_channel for the cases this tool does not cover, so alternatives remain inferential.

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