Get video privacy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing what the response reveals (audience permissions plus the embed domain whitelist, conditionally), which goes beyond the 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource and the most valuable payload element first, with zero filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does indicate the two key data points (watch permissions and the embed domain whitelist). It stops short of enumerating other privacy dimensions such as password protection or unlisted status, leaving a small gap for a one-parameter read tool.

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% with a single documented parameter, so per the rubric the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or constraint detail for video_id beyond what the schema states.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Show") with the resource (a video's audience/embed privacy settings) and specifies the payload: who can watch, who can embed, and the domain whitelist. It is clearly distinguishable from the generic get_video sibling, though it does not explicitly name that sibling to sharpen the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied — the phrase "exactly who can watch and embed" suggests a privacy-audit scenario, and "when embedding is restricted" hints at a conditional case. There is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of get_video or the embed-preset tools, and no prerequisites are given.

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