Get Video Context

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld) by disclosing the language fallback order (original audio, then authored captions, then automatic captions), that partial coverage and unavailable transcripts are surfaced explicitly, and the hard limitation that visual-only content cannot be analyzed. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the use case in the first clause, then layers scope, defaulting behavior, edge-case handling, and the responsibility boundary in tight sentences with no 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?

With an output schema present the description need not explain return shape, and it covers the caveats an agent must anticipate (partial coverage, unavailable transcripts, visual-only limitation). The only meaningful gap is any guidance on the limit parameter.

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 documents url and language but leaves limit undocumented (33% coverage per signals). The description compensates for the language parameter by explaining the default selection cascade when it is omitted, which is genuine semantic value the schema does not provide; the limit parameter remains unexplained in both places.

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+resource (returns metadata, chapters, timestamped transcript for one video) and frames itself as the entry point for summary/comparison/Q&A tasks. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_video_info or get_video_transcript, so the sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

"Start here for video summaries, key takeaways, comparisons or Q&A" gives a clear usage context, and the line "This tool supplies evidence; the client agent writes the summary" clarifies the division of labor. It stops short of naming when to prefer a sibling tool instead.

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