get_video_details_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the response shape ('JSON with description and a comments list (author, text, likes)') and that comments are truncated by max_comments, which is useful. However, it never states that this is a read-only operation, nor mentions rate limits, pagination, or failure modes for invalid URLs.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args/Returns sections are scannable. It is slightly padded by restating the default comment count and by describing return values that the existing output schema already covers, but nothing is wasteful enough to impede use.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter read tool with an output schema already present, the description covers purpose, parameters, and response contents adequately. The main gap is the absence of any routing guidance against its three siblings, which the sibling set makes relevant.

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 0%, so the description must document parameters itself, and it does: url is clarified as 'Video URL or ID' (not obvious from a plain string type) and max_comments is described as a maximum with default 50. Both parameters receive meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Returns title, channel, duration, FULL description and comments of a video') and enumerates the specific fields returned. It only weakly separates itself from the sibling get_video_info_tool, relying on the word 'FULL' and the inclusion of comments rather than an explicit contrast.

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?

It offers an implied use case ('Useful for understanding context, mentioned links and audience reception') but gives no explicit when-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives to the sibling tools get_transcript_tool / get_video_info_tool. An agent must infer selection.

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