search_within_channel

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 reveals nothing beyond the basic search action: no mention of result ordering, whether Shorts or live streams are included, error behavior for invalid URLs, rate limits, or pagination. The only trait inferable is read-only-ness, which is implicit in 'search' and not explicitly disclosed.

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 verb front-loaded and zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the thin content it carries, though a slightly richer definition with usage routing would still have remained concise. Not a 5 because the brevity is partly a product of under-specification, not deliberate economy.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so an agent has no information about the return shape, result composition (e.g., video IDs, titles, metadata), or relevance ordering. In a 15-tool suite with closely related siblings like search_videos, search_transcript, and get_channel_videos, the single-sentence description leaves too much to inference for a tool that must be selected among near-cousins.

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%, so the schema already documents url (channel URL, @handle, or channel ID), query, and max_results (1-50, default 10). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at the baseline given the full schema coverage. No compensation is needed.

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 states a specific verb (search) and a well-scoped resource (videos within a specific YouTube channel). The 'within a specific YouTube channel' qualifier distinguishes it from the general search_videos sibling, though it does not name the sibling explicitly. The purpose is unambiguous and an agent can understand what the tool does even without opening the schema.

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 scope qualifier 'within a specific YouTube channel' implies when this tool is appropriate: channel-scoped search rather than platform-wide search via search_videos. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. An agent must infer the selection logic from the sibling tool names.

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