youtube.video.search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral traits. It does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (e.g., next page token), caching (forceRefresh param exists but not explained), or what results contain. The description is too sparse to guide an AI agent on how the tool behaves beyond a basic search.

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 a single sentence of 9 words, front-loading the action and key filters. It is concise but could include a second sentence to cover missing param info without being verbose. However, for its length, it is efficient.

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 has 9 parameters (4 with enums), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the meaning of all parameters, the structure of results, or any constraints. Sibling tools indicate various retrieval and analysis options, but this description does not position the tool within that ecosystem. A more complete description would discuss pagination, result fields, and optional filtering nuances.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions region, duration, recency, and order, which correspond to regionCode, videoDuration, recency, and order parameters. However, it omits important parameters: type (video/channel), channelId, maxResults, forceRefresh. These are not explained, leaving the agent with only the schema's enum/type info, which lacks context. A score of 2 reflects the significant gap.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Search' and resource 'YouTube' with filters. However, it does not mention that the tool can search both videos and channels, which is revealed in the schema via the 'type' parameter. This could cause confusion with sibling tools like youtube.channel.get_profile. Still, the name 'youtube.video.search' implies video search, and the filters are listed.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include direct video retrieval tools (get_details, batch_get_details) and channel tools, but the description does not differentiate. It does not specify context for use, such as discovery vs. known ID retrieval.

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