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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the one-query-per-call constraint and the batch alternative, but says nothing about return format, pagination, or rate limits; the safety profile is only inferable from it being a search (read) operation. Adds some context but leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by scope plus the batch alternative. No filler, and the CLI command example earns its place, though the scope note is slightly terse relative to the pool of filters.

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 17-parameter search tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description covers purpose, per-call scope, and the batch alternative. The main omission is sibling differentiation among the YouTube tools, but the structured data carries the rest.

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 description coverage is 100% — all 17 parameters (filters like hd, live, duration, sort_by, upload_date) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search YouTube and return structured results'), immediately telling the agent this is a search tool. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_youtube_video_metadata or get_youtube_video_subtitles, so differentiation is only implicit via the 'search' verb.

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?

Explicitly states the scope ('one query per call') and names the alternative path (the ScrapingBee CLI) with a concrete condition for choosing it — running many queries or writing to disk. It gives no guidance against the YouTube-specific siblings, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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