get_video_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose what data is returned (description, likes, comments). However, it does not cover auth requirements, error behavior for invalid or missing video IDs, rate limits, or comment pagination.

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?

One 14-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource before the return fields. No wasted words or repetition of schema content.

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 single-parameter read tool, the essentials are covered: what it does and what it returns. Minor gaps remain around edge-case behavior (nonexistent video) and explicit sibling routing, but the low complexity keeps the burden small.

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%, with the schema already documenting video_id as 'YouTube video ID or URL'. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond aligning with the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('a specific YouTube video') and lists the fields returned (description, likes, comments). The singular-video scope distinguishes it from siblings like search_videos and get_channel_info, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied: call this when you already have a video ID and want its details. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives like search_videos for finding videos without an ID.

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