youtube_research

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It describes the internal process (discovery, concurrent transcript extraction, semantic search, clustering) but does not mention key constraints like read-only nature, potential duration (multi-step autonomous tool likely takes time), or any side effects. It is informative but incomplete regarding operational boundaries.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Autonomous multi-video research tool') and then lists key capabilities efficiently. It is concise but slightly run-on, packing many clauses together. Still, it earns its place with no filler.

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 complex (7 parameters, autonomous behavior) and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. However, the description omits practical context such as that the tool may be long-running or resource-intensive, and it does not mention any limitations or prerequisites. Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden and leaves gaps that an agent might need for correct usage.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only gives a high-level overview. No extra value is contributed here.

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 clear, specific purpose: an autonomous multi-video research tool that discovers videos, extracts transcripts, performs semantic search, and produces timestamped citations with clustering. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like youtube_search or youtube_transcript, which handle individual operations. The verb 'research' and resource 'multi-video' make its scope unambiguous.

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 use for broad research across multiple videos, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the siblings (e.g., 'for a single video use youtube_video'). There are no when-not-to-use conditions or named alternatives. The context is clear enough to infer the intended use, but guidance is not explicit.

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