get_video_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the output contents, including the nature of the links list, but does not disclose any limitations, error conditions, or permission requirements. This is a read-only informational tool, so moderate transparency is acceptable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. The clarification about the links list is useful and concise.

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?

Given the tool's simple nature and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It communicates the key output types and clarifies a potentially ambiguous field (links). It does not detail 'engagement counts' but that is minor and likely covered by the output schema.

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 already provides a clear description for the single 'video' parameter (ID or URL). The description does not add further parameter-level details, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 retrieves a video's full description, extracted links, tags, and engagement counts. This specific verb+resource+details structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_video_transcript.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention exclusions. The context is clear but lacks direct guidance on choosing among related tools.

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