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 adds useful context about pagination scraping support and that thumbnails won't be blurred by age safety, which aren't obvious from the schema. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the response format looks like (e.g., what data is returned). For a search tool with 7 parameters, this leaves significant 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?

The description is concise with three sentences that each add value: stating the core function, mentioning pagination support, and noting thumbnail behavior. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the second sentence about pagination scraping could be clearer (e.g., explaining how it works), and there's some redundancy with 'YouTube videos (movies)'.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, search functionality) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and some behavioral traits but misses critical details like response format, error handling, and usage guidelines relative to siblings. The schema handles parameters well, but the description doesn't compensate for other 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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or provide examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage from the schema alone, with no value added by the description.

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 videos (movies) with optional filters, providing a specific verb ('searches') and resource ('YouTube videos/movies'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_for_channels' and 'search_for_playlists' by specifying the content type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_for_channel_videos_and_playlists' or 'list_hashtag_videos', which are similar video search tools.

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 like 'search_for_channels', 'search_for_playlists', or other video listing tools. It mentions optional filters and pagination scraping, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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