search_youtube

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the raw API response and provides a structured result object with data/error/successful. It also explains pagination via page_token and max_results, though it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements.

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-organized with an overview sentence, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every line adds value—parameter details are precise and the return contract is stated. No filler or redundant content.

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's complexity (five parameters, rich query syntax, multiple resource types), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, query syntax, parameters, pagination, and return format. An output schema exists for the return value, so the explanation of the response object is sufficient.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. Every parameter is elaborated: 'q' includes query syntax examples, 'max_results' states range and default, 'page_token' explains pagination, 'part' defines acceptable values, and 'type' lists supported resource types.

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 a specific verb 'Searches', names the resource 'YouTube', and defines the scope as 'videos, channels, or playlists'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which target narrower actions like channel statistics or video uploads.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: any search across YouTube content types. It details supported query syntax and result narrowing via the 'type' parameter, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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