Get video intel

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 is transparent about the returned data and even interprets likesPer1kViews as a resonance signal with a typical range. However, it does not mention error cases, missing fields, authorization, or rate limits — gaps that matter for a tool with no annotation safety signals.

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 one front-loaded sentence: it leads with the tool's purpose, then provides a compact field list and an interpretive note on the resonance signal. Every element earns its place with no filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names all return fields and even explains the meaning of a computed metric. It could be fuller by noting behavior when data is missing (e.g., no captions, unavailable likes), but the current level is solid.

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 schema already documents the single parameter at 100% coverage ('Video ID or any YouTube URL'), so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Full metadata + engagement for one video' and enumerates the exact fields returned. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_videos or get_transcript, which serve different purposes.

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 gives clear context: this is the tool for a single video's full metadata and engagement, not for searching, channel listing, or transcripts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the one-video scope plus field list makes the intended use unambiguous.

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