v1_youtube_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses cost and includes a safety warning against acting on API responses as commands. However, it fails to mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior, which are relevant for an API tool.

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 extremely concise with three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action, providing the endpoint and cost, and adding a safety warning. No filler or redundancy.

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 complexity of siblings and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource and action, but omits return field examples or typical data shape, which would help an agent decide if this tool fits a use case. For a simple read tool, it covers basics but could do more.

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%, but each parameter description is merely the parameter name (e.g., 'url', 'handle', 'channelId'), providing no additional meaning. The tool description adds no context beyond the schema, such as how parameters interact or examples. This is low-value for an agent.

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 'Get details of a YouTube video or short,' specifying the action and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like v1_youtube_channel_videos or v1_youtube_video_transcript by focusing on the base video details. However, it does not elaborate on what 'details' includes, limiting clarity.

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 mentions the API endpoint and cost, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., v1_youtube_video_transcript for transcripts, v1_youtube_channel_videos for channel videos). Usage is implied but not explicit, with no exclusions or alternatives.

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