youtube_get_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly identifies this as a read/retrieval operation, but does not disclose whether the video must be public, whether this requires authentication, what happens for deleted/unavailable videos, or any rate-limit or quota considerations. For metadata retrieval with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral context is warranted.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with the primary purpose and follows with a terse arg description. 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?

With only 1 parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify what 'metadata and statistics' includes (views, likes, duration, etc.) and any call requirements such as auth. The description is minimal and leaves the agent unprepared regarding what it will receive back and under what conditions the call succeeds.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It includes an example video ID ('dQw4w9WgXcQ') and labels the param as 'YouTube video ID', adding a small amount of concrete value. However, it doesn't explain where to obtain the ID (e.g., from a URL), describe ID format constraints beyond the example, or mention whether the ID must be canonical versus anything else.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'get detailed metadata and statistics for a specific video.' The purpose is distinct from siblings like youtube_get_channel (channel metadata) and youtube_list_videos (listing). While it doesn't explicitly name an alternative, the specific 'specific video' phrasing differentiates it from listing/search tools.

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 implies usage by describing what it retrieves, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., whether auth is needed for private videos), and no exclusions. Slightly above baseline because 'get detailed metadata' implies a fetch/read operation distinct from search or list operations, but this is only implied, not stated.

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