get_video_seo_score

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it performs a check (non-destructive read), scores multiple dimensions (title, description, tags, thumbnail), and returns a structured result (overall score 0-100 with breakdown). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which are gaps for a tool interacting with an external platform.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second details the scoring dimensions and return format. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (SEO scoring with multiple dimensions), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does, what it checks, and the return format. However, it lacks details on error cases (e.g., invalid video ID) or platform-specific constraints, which could be helpful for robust agent usage.

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%, with the single parameter 'video_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the video must be on YouTube, which is already evident from the context. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('checks', 'scores', 'returns') and resources ('video's metadata', 'YouTube SEO best practices'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on SEO scoring rather than analysis of thumbnails, channels, comments, or other video aspects mentioned in the sibling list.

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 implies usage when SEO evaluation is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_video_details or analyze_thumbnail. It doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the purpose alone.

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