Get video detail

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 a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: tags are only returned to the owning channel and read as empty otherwise, which prevents an agent from misreading an empty tag list as a data error.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The return-field inventory comes first, and the caveat that qualifies those fields follows immediately after.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and discloses the tag-visibility caveat; annotations cover the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior on an invalid or missing video id.

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%: 'video' (id or URL) and 'account' (quota-spending channel) are both documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Full detail for one video') and enumerates the exact fields returned (title, description, channel, views, likes, comments, duration, tags). The singular 'one video' scope implicitly separates it from list-style siblings like search_videos and list_my_videos, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explains what is returned but never says when to reach for this tool versus get_transcript, search_videos, or get_channel. There are no stated prerequisites or exclusions beyond the incidental tag-visibility note.

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