Video details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add one piece of behavior beyond them — that the response includes stored stat history alongside current metadata — but it says nothing about scope, cost, or what the returned history window covers.

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?

A single sentence with the resource front-loaded and the returned fields parenthesized; no filler and nothing buried mid-clause.

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 two parameters, one required, full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the short description is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is overlap ambiguity with the analytics sibling, which matters for tool selection in this crowded namespace.

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 100%, so both video_id and the optional channel_id (with its default-channel fallback) are already fully documented inline. The description adds only that the tool targets exactly one video, not batch behavior.

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?

States the resource (a single video's full metadata) and enumerates the returned fields (title, description, tags, duration, format, stats) plus stored stat history, which clearly separates it from list/search siblings. It does not, however, draw the line against youtube_get_video_analytics, which overlaps with the 'stats' and 'history' it advertises.

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 is only implied: fetch details once you have a video_id. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer youtube_get_video_analytics or youtube_compare_videos, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., a connected channel).

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