youtube_search_videos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search', which weakly implies a read-only operation, but it does not state what is returned, whether results are limited or paginated, or any other observable behavior. Behavioral context is essentially absent.

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 15-word sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, and search criteria are front-loaded, and every word earns its place. This is appropriately concise for a straightforward search tool.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should supply more context: what the returned video links look like, what the optional parameters control, and how ordering works. An agent can make a basic call with just `query`, but cannot correctly exploit the optional parameters or anticipate the return shape.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for `query` (song title, artist, or free text), but says nothing about `limit`, `order`, or `regionCode`. Three of the four parameters remain undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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') with a clear resource ('YouTube or YouTube Music-compatible video links') and states the accepted search criteria (song title, artist, or free text). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like youtube_resolve_links or youtube_identify_track, though the 'search' verb indirectly sets it apart.

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 gives input guidance (what to enter as a search), but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as spotify_search_tracks, youtube_resolve_links, or youtube_identify_track. No conditions, exclusions, or selection criteria are stated.

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