Get YouTube Video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It mentions 'public' which implies no authentication, and 'gets' indicates a read operation. However, it does not disclose return format, normalization details, error behavior (e.g., invalid/private URLs), or whether the video must be public. This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without redundancy. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. 'Normalized public metadata' is vague; it does not explain what metadata fields are returned, how normalization works, or how errors are handled. An agent cannot fully predict the tool's output or failure modes, making this insufficient for robust 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 input schema only specifies a 'url' with format 'uri' and zero description coverage, so the tool description must clarify. The phrase 'YouTube video URL' adds meaning by specifying the URL type, which is helpful for an agent deciding what value to pass. It does not elaborate further, but for a single obvious parameter this is sufficient.

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 ('Gets') and resource ('normalized public metadata' for a YouTube video URL), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch channels, playlists, or transcripts. It unambiguously identifies the tool's scope as single-video 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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or list exclusions, but the scope is implied: it is for obtaining metadata about a specific YouTube video. No sibling tool performs the same function, so the purpose itself gives adequate usage context, though explicit guidance is missing.

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