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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it retrieves suggestions, without mentioning side effects, rate limits, return format, or any other behavioral details. For a read operation, it fails to convey anything beyond the obvious, leaving the agent with incomplete information about expected behavior.

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 brief and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. It is efficient and wastes no words. However, it includes metadata about 'Group' and 'Billing' that, while harmless, could be considered extraneous. Overall, it is concise and well-structured.

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 lacks an output schema, so the description should clarify what it returns, but it does not. It also fails to provide usage context or alternative guidance. While the input schema is complete, the overall context is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and applicability, especially given the presence of many sibling tools.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters, including examples (e.g., 'how to c' and 'how'). The description adds no additional semantic information about these parameters, so it earns the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage. The schema already does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: it retrieves search suggestions from YouTube based on a query. This specific verb and resource distinguish it from sibling search tools like get_youtube_v3_search, which return actual search results. The mention of 'search suggestions' is unambiguous.

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 implies usage through its name and purpose but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_youtube_v3_search. It lacks clear guidance on when not to use it or what differentiates it from other search tools. The usage context is implied, not spelled out.

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