get_video_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates this is a read operation ('Returns') and specifies the scope ('full metadata'), but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format. It adds some context by mentioning 'tags' as included metadata, which is useful but not comprehensive.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and scope, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently includes only essential information.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is mostly complete—it clarifies purpose, usage, and scope. However, it could better address behavioral aspects like response structure or limitations, given the lack of annotations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the video_id parameter fully. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the specific action ('Returns full metadata') and resource ('for a single video, including tags'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_channel_videos (which lists multiple videos) or get_engagement_stats (which focuses on metrics). The verb 'deep-dive' further emphasizes its detailed, singular focus.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('after identifying it via get_channel_videos') and implies an alternative (use get_channel_videos first for identification). This provides clear context for sequencing and distinguishes it from other video-related tools like get_video_comments or get_video_transcript.

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