nexus_get_external_video

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds the return shape. It does not disclose potential external calls, failure behavior, or provider-specific limitations, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden here.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence and the return shape in a short second line. The parenthetical 'v2 GraphQL' is mildly redundant with the title but does not undermine clarity.

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 an output schema and safety annotations, the description provides sufficient context. The main omission is explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related lookup tools, but this is not critical given the tool's narrow scope.

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 single parameter is fully described in the schema as 'External video URL (YouTube etc.)'. The description's reference to 'external video URL' provides negligible additional meaning beyond what the schema already includes.

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 states that the tool resolves an external video URL into embed metadata, and it lists the concrete fields returned. This makes the tool's purpose specific enough to distinguish it from most siblings, though it does not explicitly name a differentiating sibling.

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 intended use is implied: you have an external video URL and need embed metadata. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide usage context such as supported URL patterns beyond the schema's 'YouTube etc.' note.

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