Get Videos

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top: missing/invisible videos are silently omitted, an all-missing batch yields a not-found error, and the call costs 1 quota unit.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the payload description, then edge-case behavior, then cost. Nothing is repeated from the schema and every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return structure needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description fills the remaining gaps (partial-result semantics, not-found behavior, quota) adequately for a read-only lookup tool; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including batching and channel selection, so the description carries little additional param burden. It adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; a 3 baseline is appropriate.

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 specific verb+resource ('full metadata, statistics, and status for one or more videos'), which is enough to separate it from get_analytics or list_video_categories. It never names a sibling, so an agent must still infer the boundary, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 explains what comes back but never says when to reach for this tool instead of search, get_analytics, or get_processing_status. No prerequisites or selection criteria are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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