get_video_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool gets 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., metadata, statistics, duration), whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first and args listed clearly. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the args section could be more integrated into the flow rather than a separate block. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 (a read operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails, potential return values, or how it differs from siblings. For a tool in this context, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.

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 description adds minimal parameter semantics: it mentions 'video_id: YouTube video ID,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's title 'Video Id.' However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides basic context but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema details (e.g., format examples).

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's purpose as 'Get detailed information about a video,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_videos' (plural) or 'get_related_videos_tool,' which might have overlapping functionality. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 siblings like 'get_videos' (which might list videos) and 'get_related_videos_tool' (which might fetch related content), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool name and basic description.

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