Gemini Youtube Tool

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower, but the description adds nothing: no mention of whether the video is fetched/transcribed, model tradeoffs (flash vs. pro), latency, or limits. It merely restates the name.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise, and it is not front-loaded with any useful routing or behavioral 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, but the description still omits any differentiation from the many sibling analysis tools and any behavioral specifics an agent needs to select and call this correctly.

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 all three parameters including the default question and model. The description adds no additional meaning, which is the baseline expectation when the schema carries the load.

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?

States a verb (Analyze) and resource (YouTube video), which is clear enough in isolation. However, it fails to distinguish from close siblings like gemini_youtube_summary_tool and gemini_analyze_url_tool, so an agent cannot tell when this tool is the right pick.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the sibling gemini_youtube_summary_tool or gemini_analyze_url_tool, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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