youtube_search_suggestions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it's a public endpoint with no quota/cost, which is useful behavioral info. However, it doesn't describe the return format, rate limits, or what happens with invalid language codes. The description gives some value but not rich behavioral context beyond the no-quota note and SEO framing.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the SEO use case and no-quota note, then documents the two params. Each sentence earns its place and there's no fluff or repetition. Well-structured and appropriately sized.

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?

For a simple 2-param, no-output-schema tool, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, use case, cost implications, and params. Gaps include return format/pagination and potential quotas even if the endpoint is 'public'. Given the simplicity, this is adequate but not exceptional — the parameter descriptions could add more depth.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists 'query: Partial search query to get suggestions for' and 'language: Language code (e.g., en, es)', which restates the schema fields with minimal added meaning. The 'partial' qualifier on query adds some value (indicating fuzzy matching), but there's no detail on format, length limits, or how language affects results. This is borderline insufficient for a 2-param tool.

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 it gets YouTube autocomplete/search suggestions for a query, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from the sibling youtube_search (which presumably does full search) by being autocomplete/suggestions focused. Title is null but name is descriptive.

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 explicitly notes it's 'useful for SEO keyword research' and that it has 'no quota cost (uses YouTube's public suggest endpoint)', giving clear context on when to choose this tool over other YouTube tools that require auth or quota. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives but the SEO/research framing plus no-quota highlight provides solid guidance.

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