search_youtube

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 reveals credit cost, filter limits, platform-specific field usage (totalSubscribers vs totalFollowers), and pagination mechanics. It does not mention side effects (likely read-only) or authentication, but the behavioral traits are well covered 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 four sentences, each dense with useful information: purpose, billing, platform-specific field guidance, and response pagination. No extraneous words. It is well front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 the tool (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential points: what the tool does, how filtering works (including costs and field naming), and how to paginate. The output schema is absent, but the description lists the response fields and pagination mechanism. It does not cover error handling or edge cases, but it is adequate for typical usage.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains the credit cost relation to filters, emphasizes using totalSubscribers over totalFollowers, and provides context about YouTube-specific fields (topics, niches) and pagination response structure. This extra information helps the agent use parameters correctly.

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 YouTube creators using structured filters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_instagram by highlighting YouTube-specific fields (topics, totalSubscribers vs totalFollowers) and explaining pagination. The verb 'search' and resource 'YouTube creators' are specific and 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?

The description provides explicit billing context (1 credit per 10 filters, max 10) and warns to use totalSubscribers not totalFollowers for count thresholds. It explains YouTube-only fields and pagination response fields (creatorList, totalResults, hasNextPage, nextOffset) with instructions to pass nextOffset for pagination. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, the platform context gives clear alternatives.

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