search_youtube

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the paginated listing behavior and the rule that the cursor must be passed back unmodified — a behavioral detail no annotation encodes.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the pagination hint second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 read-only search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers action, pagination and safety adequately. The remaining gap is that "return the listing" does not say what a listing item looks like, and no output schema exists to compensate.

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 coverage is 100%, so query, limit, cursor and timeout_seconds are all documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only reinforces cursor semantics ("pass unchanged"), adding little beyond "Opaque cursor from a previous call" and saying nothing about limit or timeout behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search YouTube videos by query") plus the return shape ("return the listing"), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_video_transcript or list_playlist_videos. It never contrasts itself with the closest sibling, search_channel_videos, so the global-vs-channel scope must be inferred.

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 second sentence gives real procedural guidance for paginating ("Pass cursor unchanged for the next page"), which is the main usage pitfall. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over search_channel_videos or get_video_discovery, so the routing decision is left implicit.

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