get_basic_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the async nature via 'Async: poll check_basic_metadata with the returned jobId', the limited scope of data ('title, duration, and thumbnail only'), and cost-related traits ('Cheaper and quicker'). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'identify or validate' implies a non-mutating operation, which is sufficient for this context.

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 two sentences: the first states purpose and return scope, the second gives usage guidance and async note. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence adds value without 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what is returned, which it does ('title, duration, and thumbnail'). It also covers the async workflow, differentiating from get_metadata, and provides a clear use case. Given the simple single-parameter schema, the description is complete for an agent 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?

The only parameter (url) has 100% schema description coverage with a concrete example, so the schema already fully documents it. The tool description adds only contextual framing (video/audio URL) but no additional parameter semantics. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers parameters well.

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 it provides 'Fast-path metadata for a video/audio URL' with specific return fields (title, duration, thumbnail), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_metadata by noting it is 'Cheaper and quicker than get_metadata'. This gives a specific verb+resource+scope and differentiates from alternatives.

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?

It explicitly says 'use this to identify or validate a media URL before importing or transcoding it', providing a clear when-to-use context. It also implies when not to use it by contrasting with get_metadata for richer metadata. The async polling instruction ('poll check_basic_metadata with the returned jobId') further guides usage.

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