Get video details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only behavior is covered. The description adds the useful '1 quota unit' cost note, but it does not describe response shape, error handling, or behavior for invalid IDs. 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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core behavior and input constraint are front-loaded, and the quota note is placed last. Every word contributes value.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with informative annotations, this description is nearly complete: it covers input types, limits, result scope, and cost. Without an output schema, a more explicit return-shape note would be helpful, but 'Full details and stats' provides adequate orientation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only documentation of the 'videos' parameter. It adds essential meaning by stating that strings can be IDs or URLs and that up to 50 are allowed. It stops short of concrete URL format examples but compensates well for 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 clearly identifies the resource (videos) and the operation's scope: retrieving full details and stats for up to 50 videos. The 'IDs or URLs' qualifier helps distinguish this from tools like search or list_channel_videos, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 'IDs or URLs' phrase implies this tool is for callers who already have specific video references rather than for discovery via search or channel listing. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions sibling tools.

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