searchYoutube

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the search covers multiple resource types and that results include thumbnails, views, and channel info. However, it omits behavioral details like pagination (despite a `pageToken` parameter), result limits, and the non-destructive nature of the operation, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Search YouTube for videos, channels, and playlists') followed by return value information. There is no filler, redundancy, or wasted wording, making it optimally concise.

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 description provides a clear overall purpose and return information, and the schema covers all parameters. However, it lacks contextual details about pagination, how to use the `sp` filter for duration/date, and the relationship to sibling tools. Since there is no output schema, the return-field mention helps, but the tool is not fully contextualized.

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%, with all six parameters having descriptions in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides—it does not elaborate on `gl`, `hl`, `sp`, `limit`, or `pageToken`. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema handles parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb 'Search' with resource 'YouTube' and explicitly lists the result types ('videos, channels, and playlists') and return fields ('thumbnails, views, and channel info'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like getVideoInfo and getComments, which retrieve specific resources.

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 states what the tool does but does not explicitly tell the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives like getVideoInfo or getComments. The sibling names imply a search-to-detail workflow, but no explicit 'use this for X, use that for Y' guidance is provided, so usage is only implied.

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