get_video_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only operation without side effects, but does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. It meets basic expectations for a metadata retrieval tool.

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 a single, compact sentence that leads with the primary action and lists key fields. It is efficient and front-loaded, with no extraneous content.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools and does not specify output details beyond a list of fields. Given no output schema, more detail on return structure would improve completeness.

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 single parameter 'url' is well-described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds an overview of return fields but does not clarify parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 detailed metadata for a YouTube video and enumerates specific fields (title, description, channel, etc.). It is unambiguous about the resource and action, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_channel_info.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as get_channel_info or get_video_comments. The description does not mention that it is for a single video only, nor does it provide context on prerequisites or conditions.

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