get_video_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly signals a read-only operation via 'Fetches' and lists the returned data categories. It does not disclose API quotas, authentication requirements, error behavior for invalid video IDs, or whether hidden/unlisted videos are included, so transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 well-organized into Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds useful information, and the parameter format is front-loaded before the return summary. There is no unnecessary filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the key calling details: what to pass and what to expect back. The main missing piece is usage differentiation from analytics/comment siblings, but that was already captured under usage guidelines and does not prevent correct invocation.

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 schema provides only the parameter name and type, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so fully by specifying that video_ids is a comma-separated list and providing an explicit example ('vid1,vid2'), which is exactly the operational detail an agent needs.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetches') and resource ('full metadata, description, tags, and statistics for specified video IDs'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_video_analytics or get_video_comments, but the described content is distinct enough for an agent to infer the difference.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need complete metadata and statistics for specific video IDs. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor any mention of alternatives such as get_video_analytics for analytics or get_video_comments for comments.

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