Get Video Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral note — that retrieved content is untrusted data — which flags prompt-injection risk, a trait not present in 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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the return fields lead and the untrusted-data caveat closes it. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and annotations cover the safety profile for this simple read tool. The only gap is the lack of sibling routing, which the purpose and usage scores already capture.

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 url parameter is fully documented in the schema (HTTPS YouTube video URL, length bounds). The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so the 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?

Clear specific verb + resource and an explicit enumeration of what is returned (title, channel, duration, upload date, views). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_video_context, which an agent could easily confuse with metadata retrieval.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no exclusion of the siblings; the agent must infer that this is the metadata-fetch tool and get_video_context/transcript tools serve other needs. Nothing states prerequisites or the single-video scope beyond the schema.

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