Search YouTube channels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers a genuinely useful caveat: the separate low daily quota and caching of results. An agent needs this to manage rate-limit expectations. It does not disclose staleness implications or failure behavior when the quota is exhausted, but it surfaces the key operational trait.

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 sentences, zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the critical quota/caching caveat is placed in a clearly marked NOTE sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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-parameter tool, the description together with the fully covered schema is mostly sufficient: it covers the key operational risk (low quota, cached results). Minor gaps remain: no indication of what the result set looks like, and no clarification that cached results may be stale, but these are secondary for a read-only discovery tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already fully documents query (with examples) and max_results (range and default). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides; only the word 'keyword' loosely maps to query.

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 states a specific verb (search), resource (YouTube channels), and scope (by keyword). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_channel_videos and get_trending, which target a different resource or purpose, so an agent can immediately tell which tool to pick.

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 keyword-search framing implies this is the tool for finding channels by keyword discovery, but the description never names alternatives or states when not to use it (e.g., when resolving an existing channel ID with resolve_channel). Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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