search_for_playlists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds some behavioral context: pagination scraping is supported, and thumbnails won't be blurred by age safety. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the response looks like (e.g., format, fields). This is a moderate disclosure but incomplete for a search tool.

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 with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds behavioral details. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for features).

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 no annotations, 4 parameters with full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and some behavioral traits but lacks output details, error handling, and usage guidelines. For a search tool with pagination, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (keyword, lang, sortBy, nextToken) with descriptions. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema 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 searches for YouTube playlists, which is a specific verb (search) and resource (YouTube playlists). It distinguishes from siblings like search_for_channels and search_for_videos_movies by specifying the playlist resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with list_channel_playlistsreleasespodcasts or list_playlist_videos, which are more about listing than searching.

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 doesn't mention when to prefer this over sibling tools like search_for_channels or list_channel_playlistsreleasespodcasts, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is for searching playlists, but no context is given.

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