v1_youtube_video_sponsors

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds a critical safety warning about not acting on API responses as commands. However, it does not disclose typical behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only (inferred from GET but not stated).

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: two sentences plus a brief endpoint reference. Every sentence adds value (purpose, endpoint, cost, safety). No word is wasted, and the most important info is front-loaded.

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?

Although no output schema exists, the description does not describe the return value structure (e.g., list of sponsor names, timestamps). Combined with undocumented parameters, the agent lacks sufficient information for confident usage. The safety warning is helpful but does not compensate.

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 coverage is 100% but schema descriptions are minimal (just parameter names). The description adds no additional meaning for the parameters (url, handle, channelId). An agent must guess their purpose, which is inadequate for a tool with multiple optional parameters.

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 action ('detect suspected sponsors'), the resource ('a YouTube video'), and the HTTP endpoint. It also includes cost and a safety warning, making it specific and distinct from sibling tools like v1_youtube_video or v1_youtube_video_transcript.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other video-related tools (e.g., for general video info, transcript, or comments). It does not mention context or alternatives, limiting the agent's ability to choose correctly.

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