YouTube'da şarkı ara

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and scope. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it lists the exact return fields and emphasizes that no playback occurs, which prevents a common misuse. It does not cover limits, error handling, or pagination, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 front-loaded with the core action and return fields, then the critical 'does not play' clarification, then usage and follow-up. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by naming the returned fields. Annotations cover read-only and open-world behavior, and the description adds the no-play guarantee plus the play_song handoff. For a simple search tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, and both parameters (query, limit) are documented in the schema with examples and bounds. The description adds no parameter syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('YouTube'da arama yapar') and lists the return fields (başlık, kanal, süre, URL). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by saying 'Bir şey ÇALMAZ' and naming play_song as the alternative. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does versus play_song.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('Kullanıcı seçenek görmek istediğinde ya da doğru versiyondan emin olmak istediğinde') and when not to use it for playback ('Bir şey ÇALMAZ'). It also names the follow-up alternative: pass the selected URL to play_song.

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