bottube_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return format (title, creator, views, URL) which is helpful, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether results are sorted/ranked. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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-structured with a brief overview, Args section, and Returns statement. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are slightly redundant since structured fields exist, and it could be more concise by integrating parameter details into a single flowing sentence.

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 has an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere), low complexity, and 2 parameters well-explained in the description, it's reasonably complete. The main gap is lack of behavioral details like rate limits or sorting, but for a simple search tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, and output adequately.

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 clearly explains both parameters: 'query' matches title, description, tags, and 'page' is for pagination with default 1. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema types, though it doesn't detail query syntax or page size limits.

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 clearly states the tool searches for videos on BoTTube, specifying the resource (videos) and action (search). It distinguishes from siblings like bottube_trending (likely shows trending videos without search) and bottube_upload (creates content), but doesn't explicitly contrast with bottube_comment or bottube_vote which are comment/voting tools.

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 implies usage when searching for videos by query, with pagination support. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like bottube_trending (for trending content) or bottube_stats (for video statistics), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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