gemini_youtube_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Analyze a YouTube video,' which gives no information about side effects, required permissions, output format, or any operational details. This is a significant lack of transparency for a tool that presumably calls external APIs and processes video content.

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 sentence, making it concise in length. However, it is under-specified to the point of being nearly content-free. It lacks necessary structure or elaboration, so while it is brief, it does not serve the agent well. Concise but ineffective.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description gives no indication of what analysis is performed, what questions it can answer, or how it handles errors. With a sibling gemini_youtube_summary_tool, the description fails to clarify the unique value proposition. The tool has 3 parameters and a complex task (video analysis), so the description is grossly inadequate.

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 each parameter has a basic description ('YouTube video URL', 'Model to use', 'Question or instruction about the video'). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, but since the schema already documents parameters adequately, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. However, the descriptions are minimal and do not explain parameter choices (e.g., model options), yet that's not the tool description's fault.

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 'Analyze a YouTube video' is extremely vague. It states a verb and resource but does not specify the nature of the analysis, what insights are generated, or how it differs from the sibling gemini_youtube_summary_tool. There is no differentiation or detail.

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 alternatives like gemini_youtube_summary_tool or gemini_check_video_tool. It lacks any context about use cases, prerequisites, or conditions when it should or should not be used.

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