YouTube Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds useful context: results come via the Decodo Web Scraping API's youtube_search target and are returned as JSON, plus a docs URL. It does not discuss rate limits, pagination, or result caps, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences plus a docs link: purpose first, then usage context. No filler and nothing buried later in the text.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, mechanism, and return type adequately. The only gap is that JSON result structure and result-count behavior are left unspecified, which the absence of an output schema makes slightly more noticeable.

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%, and the single 'query' parameter carries its own description with an example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds no syntax, qualifier, or formatting guidance beyond that, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search YouTube for videos'), names the underlying API target, and describes the return format ('JSON'). It is clearly distinguishable from its siblings youtube_metadata, youtube_channel, and youtube_subtitles.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('find videos on a topic before fetching their metadata or subtitles'), which also routes the agent along the intended workflow toward youtube_metadata and youtube_subtitles. It does not state when not to use it versus generic search tools, but the platform restriction makes alternatives largely moot.

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