search_videos

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

No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the sorting default and return fields, but does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., pagination, rate limits, authentication). The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Three concise sentences that front-load the purpose, then describe return value and default sorting. No unnecessary words or repetition. Highly efficient.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description must explain return values, which it does (list with title, video ID, channel info). It also notes the default sorting. However, it lacks mention of pagination or result limits, which would improve completeness for a search tool.

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% (both parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The description adds no new semantic information beyond the schema, as it only restates the query and default sortBy value. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Searches YouTube for videos matching the specified query' and specifies the resource (YouTube videos) and return fields (title, video ID, channel information). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_channels and get_channel_videos by focusing on video search.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_channels, get_channel_videos). It mentions default sorting by rating but lacks explicit context for usage scenarios or when not to use it.

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