Get a video

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the polling semantics of 'wait' and the last-recording default, which are behavioral facts not in the annotations. It still omits what happens on a nonexistent or unauthorized videoId and whether polling keeps consuming quota, which the schema's timeout note only partially mitigates.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the wait behavior plus default are front-loaded after the return-content summary. The opening is a field inventory in noun-phrase form rather than an action statement, which is slightly awkward as a lead.

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 no output schema and only three parameters, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the returned fields and the upload-stage state machine. Error behavior and the exact response shape remain undocumented, but nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies, but the description genuinely adds meaning: it defines the 'ready' state that the wait flag targets via the uploading → processing → ready progression, and restates the last-recording default for videoId. The timeout parameter's retry-again behavior is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 names the resource concretely and enumerates exactly what a single Recordful video record yields (title, length, viewership, view/edit links, upload stage), which distinguishes it from list_videos and get_transcript. It never states an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'retrieve', relying on the name and title to supply that, so it is clear but not fully self-contained.

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?

'With wait, keeps checking until it's ready' and 'Defaults to the last recording' give concrete operational context for the common calling patterns. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over siblings such as list_videos, get_transcript, or get_video_activity, and no statement of preconditions (e.g., that the video must exist or belong to you).

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