serp_youtube_video_info_live_advanced

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it 'provides data' without specifying if it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undefined, failing to compensate for the lack of annotations.

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?

While concise with a single sentence, it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. The description fails to front-load essential information (e.g., what data, from where) and wastes its brevity on a vague statement that doesn't help the agent understand the tool's purpose or usage.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on the tool's behavior, output format, and differentiation from siblings. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively, but it does not.

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 the schema already documents all parameters (video_id, location_name, etc.) with detailed descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining why these parameters are needed or how they affect results, but the high schema coverage justifies a baseline score of 3.

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 'provides data on the video you specify' is vague and tautological—it essentially restates the tool name without specifying what type of data (e.g., metadata, analytics, rankings) or from what source (e.g., YouTube SERP). It fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'serp_youtube_organic_live_advanced' or 'serp_youtube_video_comments_live_advanced', leaving the agent unclear about its unique function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'serp_youtube_organic_live_advanced', 'serp_youtube_video_comments_live_advanced'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it impossible for an agent to choose appropriately without external knowledge.

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