search_youtube

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

Beyond the read-only annotation, the description discloses important behavioral traits: the exact return structure, the fact that results carry no upload date, and error handling (ValueError on empty query, RuntimeError on search failure). This adds value beyond annotations and helps the agent anticipate edge cases.

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 well-structured with logical sections (purpose, usage, args, returns, errors). Every sentence adds value: the usage paragraph explains the workflow, the args are concise, and the return/error sections are compact. Nothing is redundant or wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully specifies the return object and its fields. It also covers error conditions, parameter ranges, and provides context for how the tool fits into a larger workflow. This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It provides an example for query ('FreeCAD sketcher constraints tutorial') and precise semantics for max_results ('1-100, default 20'), exceeding the bare schema titles. This is essential and well-executed.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Search YouTube by keyword when you do not yet know the channel or video.' It clearly frames the tool as the entry point for topic-based research, contrasting with URL-based tools like list_channel_videos and get_video_transcript. This distinguishes it from siblings and states exactly what it does.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you do not yet know the channel or video') and provides guidance on sequencing: 'find candidate videos here, then feed their channel or URL to list_channel_videos or get_video_transcript.' It also notes a limitation (no upload date) and directs users to alternatives for that missing data.

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