parse_youtube_url

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It openly states what data is extracted and which URL shapes are supported. It does not mention invalid-input behavior or return shape, but as a side-effect-free parser, the disclosed scope is largely sufficient.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the action and extracted fields, the second lists supported input formats. Everything included earns its place; there is no redundant wording.

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 single-parameter parser with no output schema, the description covers the input requirements and the categories of output data. It could be more precise about the exact return object shape or behavior on invalid URLs, but an agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% with the parameter described as 'Any YouTube URL or video ID', so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by listing concrete supported formats (watch, youtu.be, /shorts/, /embed/, /playlist, /channel/, /@handle, bare video IDs), which adds practical meaning beyond the schema value alone.

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 names a specific verb ('Parse') and a clear resource ('any YouTube URL format') followed by the exact extraction targets: video ID, channel ID, playlist ID, handle, and timestamp. It also enumerates supported format patterns, which unambiguously separates this parsing utility from all sibling tools that search or analyze video content.

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 makes its context clear: call this when you need to resolve any YouTube URL or bare ID into structured identifiers and a timestamp. It does not explicitly state when *not* to use it, but none of the sibling tools perform URL parsing, so the omission of alternatives is not a meaningful gap.

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