search_videos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search capability and filter categories; it does not mention what result fields are returned, whether pagination exists, or any API caveats. For a search tool with no output schema, this leaves meaningful behavioral ambiguity.

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 with the core verb and resource front-loaded, followed by a compact enumeration of the filter dimensions. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has six parameters, four enums, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only summarizes the filter categories. The input schema covers parameter semantics well, so the basic mechanics of calling the tool are documented, but the description omits search scope relative to siblings and the expected result payload. Additional context on what is returned and when this search is preferred over alternatives would improve completeness.

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 all parameters already have descriptions, including enum values, defaults, and duration ranges. The description adds a helpful category-level summary ('upload date, duration, sort order, content type') but no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), names the resource ('YouTube'), and lists the key filter dimensions, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling search tools like search_within_channel or search_transcript, but the broad 'YouTube' scope and filter list provide most of the differentiation. The word 'videos' slightly understates the fact that type can be channel or playlist, but 'content type' hints at this broader scope.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named. The phrase 'Search YouTube' implies a general search across YouTube rather than channel-scoped or transcript-scoped search, and sibling tool names reinforce that inference, but the description itself does not state the boundary. This is implied usage guidance rather than explicit guidance.

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