get_video_info_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only lists output fields. It says nothing about permissions, error behavior for invalid URLs, rate limits, or whether any network/auth preconditions apply.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word earns its place. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but structurally sound.

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 the returned values need not be re-explained, and the description partially duplicates them anyway. Still, with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented required parameter, more guidance was warranted for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single url parameter has no schema description. The description does not compensate by explaining the expected format (full URL vs. video ID) or any constraints, so the parameter is essentially undocumented.

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 specific verb (Returns) and resource (video metadata) and enumerates the fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what it produces. However, it offers no differentiation from the near-identical sibling get_video_details_tool, leaving a real ambiguity about which to call.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or how it relates to get_video_details_tool, get_transcript_tool, or list_transcripts_tool. The agent must guess between two similarly named metadata tools on its own.

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