Search YouTube

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing credit cost, 'Organic' (non-paid) nature of results, and ranking behavior ('ranked by views'). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two efficient sentences with zero waste. Purpose is front-loaded, the return format is compactly specified as a JSON key list, and the cost warning earns its place. Nothing redundant.

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?

Complete for a simple 2-param search tool. Annotations cover safety, schema covers the parameters, and the description explains the return format (compact JSON fields), ranking, purpose, and cost. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly enumerates response fields, so nothing an agent needs is missing.

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%, so both query and limit are already documented with descriptions. Out of curiosity, the description adds the 'ranked by views' context that clarifies how limit interacts with result ordering, but it doesn't add meaningful syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 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 (search), resource (YouTube), and endpoint (/v1/youtube/search), plus the intent ('videos to mine for hooks/angles/long-form structure'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling search tools like search_tiktok and search_instagram, and from the many youtube_* management tools (post_to_youtube, update_youtube_video, etc.).

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?

Gives a clear context for use — organic keyword search for mining hooks/angles/long-form structure — which tells an agent when this is the right research tool. It also discloses the cost ('Spends about a credit'). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so an agent must infer that other search tools (search_tiktok, search_threads) are the choice for other platforms.

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