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 discloses nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, result ordering, or whether the search covers titles, descriptions, or both. The description is a bare action statement with no behavioral context.

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?

A single nine-word sentence with zero wasted words and a front-loaded subject-verb-object structure. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of omitting behavioral and usage context.

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 is simple and its parameters are fully documented in the schema, making the description minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the return format, result count behavior, and scope of what gets searched are all left undisclosed.

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%, with url, query, and max_results all documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Search for videos within a specific YouTube channel.' The channel-scoping phrase is the key differentiator from the sibling search_videos, though it does not explicitly name or contrast that alternative.

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?

Usage context is only implied through the phrase 'within a specific YouTube channel,' which suggests this is for channel-scoped searches rather than global ones. There is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over search_videos, search_transcript, or other sibling tools.

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