youtube_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that each query runs a separate search, results are deduplicated by video ID, and only metadata is returned. While it doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, it covers the key behavioral traits that affect how an agent would use the results.

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 compact and well-organized: it states the main capability, explains how queries are executed, offers usage guidance, and specifies the output scope. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 search tool with only two parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, usage strategy, behavioral nuances (deduplication, separate searches), and the nature of results (metadata only). There is no ambiguity about when or how to use this tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the query strategy behind the 'queries' parameter, including typical count and phrasing. However, 'max_results_per_query' is not mentioned in the description, though its name and default value are self-explanatory. The guidance on query angles adds value beyond the schema.

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 begins with 'Search YouTube with multiple queries for broader coverage,' clearly specifying the verb (Search), resource (YouTube), and distinguishing feature (multiple queries). This differentiates it from the sibling tool youtube_get_transcript, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly advises using 2-3 queries from different angles, providing concrete strategies (specific, broader, alternative phrasing). It also states 'Returns metadata only — no transcripts,' indicating when this tool is not appropriate, especially compared to the transcript-focused sibling.

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