YouTube Media Downloader

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Pagination scraping is supported,' which adds some context about handling large result sets, but fails to cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure). For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key feature (pagination). There's no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity of a search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, auth), output format, and usage guidelines compared to siblings. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results effectively.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify parameter interactions or provide examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: 'searches for videos and playlists in a YouTube Channel.' It specifies the resource (YouTube Channel) and the action (search for videos and playlists). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_for_channels' or 'search_for_videos_movies,' which reduces clarity on when to choose this specific tool.

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 minimal guidance: it mentions 'Pagination scraping is supported,' which hints at usage for large datasets, but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_for_channels' or 'search_for_videos_movies.' There's no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios, leaving the agent with little direction.

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