get_video_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool uses oembed and requires no API key, which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error handling, rate limits, or unsupported URL formats.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the returned data and includes a useful parenthetical about authentication. Every word earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the resource, the returned fields, and the auth-free mechanism. It only lacks explicit usage boundaries relative to siblings and any note on URL constraints.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter, url. The description adds that the URL should point to a YouTube video and that it yields metadata via oembed. This is helpful for a single obvious parameter, but it does not specify accepted URL variants or validation rules.

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 names a specific resource (a YouTube video) and the exact data returned (title, channel name, thumbnail), plus the implementation method (oembed, no key). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_transcript and list_channel_videos, though it does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieves'.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The mention of oembed and 'no key' implies a low-friction metadata lookup, but it never states when to prefer it over get_transcript or list_channel_videos, leaving the choice to inference.

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