get_video_metadata

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 describes what metadata will be returned but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is needed, how errors are handled, or any rate-limiting or data-freshness considerations.

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?

One focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then efficiently enumerates the metadata categories. Every phrase contributes value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple with one well-documented parameter and no output schema. The description compensates by listing expected return fields. It lacks behavioral caveats and usage guidance, but for a straightforward metadata retrieval tool it is largely sufficient.

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 single parameter 'url' is already documented as 'YouTube video URL or video ID'. The description does not add further parameter-level detail, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('detailed metadata for a YouTube video') and enumerates concrete fields (title, description, channel, duration, counts, tags, category, thumbnails). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch comments, transcripts, or trending videos.

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 versus alternatives, and no mention of exclusions or prerequisites. While the purpose implies use when video metadata is needed, it does not explicitly differentiate from related tools like get_channel_info or search_videos.

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