get_video

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

Annotations already signal readOnly and idempotent, but the description adds critical behavioral detail beyond them: the 'url' field is 'a short-lived HTTPS presigned URL (expires within hours)' and should not be stored. This materially changes how an agent should handle the response and is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior the description should disclose.

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 three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states scope and content, the second gives the intended use case, and the third provides the presigned URL caveat. Every sentence earns its place and the most important operational warning is front-loaded at the end of the paragraph.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return-value details do not need to be in the description. The description supplies the critical operational context: when to call it, what it returns conceptually, and how to handle the expiring URL. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 0% and the description does not explain either parameter. 'video_id' is inferrable from the tool's purpose, but 'rationale' is opaque: it has no description and appears to be optional, yet the tool description never mentions it. With no schema descriptions, the description should carry meaning for parameters, but it does not.

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 begins with 'Get detailed information about a video', which is a specific verb and resource, and then enumerates the exact content: upload status, metadata (duration, resolution, fps), and per-feature indexing status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_videos or get_transcript, even without naming them.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use this to check if upload or indexing is complete', giving a concrete when-to-use scenario. It also warns to fetch the URL immediately and call again for a fresh one, which is operational guidance. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it stops short of the strongest possible guidance.

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