get_video_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API key requirement, which is useful, but it does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or whether the data is returned as raw JSON or a structured object. This is adequate but not rich.

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 lists key metadata examples. It is concise and free of unnecessary words.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations). The description explains what it fetches and the API key requirement, which covers the essentials. It could mention the output structure or potential errors, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

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 already provides full description coverage for the single parameter (videoUrl) with 'YouTube video URL or video ID'. The description does not add significant parameter-level details beyond the schema, but it does mention the type of data returned.

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 the specific verb 'Fetches' with the resource 'metadata for a YouTube video' and enumerates example fields (title, description, duration, views, likes, tags). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_transcript, get_comments, and get_channel_info.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving video metadata, and the sibling names suggest distinct purposes. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, so it falls short of full guidance.

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