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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. While it mentions billing (1 credit per call), it omits key behaviors such as pagination via nextToken, filtering capabilities, result format, or any side effects. The description is essentially a one-liner with no operational detail.

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 very brief—one sentence plus metadata—and is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it includes extra metadata ('Group: YouTube-Search', 'Billing per call') that is not directly relevant to usage, slightly reducing structural clarity. Still, it is concise and not verbose.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for complete operational understanding. It fails to mention pagination, sorting, filtering options, or any caveats (e.g., deprecated sortBy). The one-line summary is far too sparse for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all 8 parameters have descriptive entries. The description text itself does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches for videos on YouTube, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_channel, search_movie, and search_playlist. The verb 'Searches' and resource 'videos' are explicit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that other search tools exist for channels, playlists, etc., or give any when/not conditions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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