YouTube-Video analysieren

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

Even though readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read-only operation, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it names the model (Gemini), explains that both image and audio are evaluated together, and states that token usage is always reported. It also discloses the public-video restriction, which is useful beyond the annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then adds default behavior, multimodal processing, output characteristic, and a key constraint. Every sentence carries useful information without redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the main behavioral aspects and typical outputs, including the default analysis format and token reporting. Since there is no output schema and no sibling tools, the description sufficiently supports tool selection and invocation, though it could slightly expand on what the answer looks like when a prompt is provided.

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%, so the schema provides detailed meaning for all parameters including mode, detail, start, end, prompt, and url. The description adds little parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states, such as the default full analysis when prompt is omitted, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource: it analyzes a public YouTube video with Google Gemini and answers a question about it. It clearly distinguishes its behavior from generic video tools by stating that it processes image and audio together and can produce a full structured analysis with chapters, timestamps, and visual details.

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 explicitly states when the tool is appropriate: for public YouTube videos only, and it explicitly excludes private and unlisted videos. It also explains the default behavior when no prompt is supplied, which helps the agent decide whether to call the tool with or without parameters.

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