youtube-intel

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses caps (2000-char description, 20 tags), the backend tools used (yt-dlp with YouTube oembed fallback), and pricing ($0.012/call). Missing details on authentication or error handling, but adequately transparent.

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 two sentences, no extraneous words. The first sentence conveys what metadata is returned; the second covers input formats and implementation. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

No output schema, but the description lists the metadata fields. It includes details like caps and pricing. For a simple single-parameter tool, this is sufficient; it could mention the output format (e.g., JSON) but not necessary.

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 coverage is 100% and the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter description. It reiterates URL formats but does not add significant semantic depth.

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 retrieves YouTube video metadata (title, author, description, etc.) and specifies the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on YouTube. The verb 'get metadata' is implicit but well understood.

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 says it accepts any YouTube URL format or bare ID, which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the input spec is clear enough for selection.

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