search_youtube_videos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool searches videos and returns a list, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. The default and max values for 'num_videos' are noted, but broader behavioral traits are undocumented.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence adds value, with no redundant information. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the default/max details into the Args section more seamlessly, but overall it's 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose and parameters well, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication, rate limits, or error handling. The return format is described generically ('List of video information dictionaries'), but without an output schema, more specifics would be helpful.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains that 'search_term' is 'The search query for YouTube videos' and 'num_videos' specifies 'Number of videos to retrieve (default: 5, max: 50)', providing clear semantics and constraints not present in the schema. This compensates well for the low schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Search YouTube videos based on a search term.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('YouTube videos'), and scope ('based on a search term'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'get_youtube_transcript', which appears to serve a different function (retrieving transcripts rather than searching videos).

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 context through the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'search_term' for queries, 'num_videos' for limiting results), but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. It mentions a sibling tool but doesn't compare or contrast their use cases.

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