get_video_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (title, description, view count, likes) but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention authentication needs, or address potential errors/rate limits. The 'get' verb implies read-only, but more behavioral context could be added.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and lists specific example fields. Every word is useful, with no redundancy or tangents.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of the return content. However, it omits details like possible errors, authentication requirements, or the full extent of 'more' metadata, so it is not fully complete but adequate for a low-complexity tool.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'url' parameter, including that it accepts a URL or video ID. The description adds no additional parameter information, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the description provides no extra value here.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Get metadata') and resource ('YouTube video'), and enumerates concrete fields (title, description, view count, likes). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_transcript and get_channel_info.

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 for retrieving video metadata, but it does not explicitly discuss when to use it instead of alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or contextual prerequisites. The use case is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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