Get video detail

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the important behavioral detail that tags are only visible to the owning channel, which is beyond what annotations provide. This gives agents a clear expectation about field availability.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that list the returned fields and a caveat. No fluff, no repetition, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every word adds value.

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 read-only retrieval tool, the description covers the key aspects: what is returned, and a special ownership caveat. There is no output schema, but the field list substitutes. It lacks error handling or response format, but that is not critical given the simplicity and annotations.

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?

Both parameters (video and account) have descriptions in the schema, with 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents the parameters, the description's contribution is neutral.

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 returns full detail for a single video and enumerates the specific fields (title, description, channel, views, likes, comments, duration, tags). This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_videos (multiple videos) and get_transcript (transcript only). The verb 'get' and resource 'video' are explicit.

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 this is for looking up details of one video, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like get_transcript or get_channel. No 'when not to use' or exclusion conditions are given, though the tags caveat hints at ownership considerations.

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