get_video_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get') and lists the return fields, which is useful. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, authentication/rate limits, error conditions, or whether certain fields may be missing (e.g., for age-restricted videos). It does not contradict expectations, but leaves room for additional context.

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 states the primary purpose first and then lists the specific data fields. There is no extraneous wording, and the 'and more' keeps it open without padding.

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 simple metadata-retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description lists the returned fields comprehensively. It does not specify the response format (e.g., JSON structure) or error handling, but these are less critical given the straightforward nature of the operation. It could mention that it works for both URLs and IDs, but the schema already does that.

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 already fully documents the single 'url' parameter (100% coverage), including the accepted format ('YouTube video URL or video ID'). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Get') and a clear resource ('detailed metadata for a YouTube video'), then enumerates the exact fields (title, description, channel, duration, counts, tags, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that serve other purposes like transcripts (get_transcript) or comments (get_video_comments).

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 implies usage when metadata is needed, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or comparisons. Given the range of sibling tools, more explicit routing would help, but the verb and resource make the primary use case clear.

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