searchVideos

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying that the tool returns videoId or channelId needed for other tools and mentions filtering capabilities, providing context beyond 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?

The description is concise with three sentences, each adding value: first sentence states purpose, second gives specific usage guidance, third notes return values. No fluff, well front-loaded.

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?

Given the parameter count and schema richness, the description explains return IDs and filtering. It lacks pagination details or full response structure, but is sufficient for a search tool with good schema documentation.

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 well-described parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as emphasizing that 'type' must be set to 'channel' for channel searches, but overall does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 is a universal search tool for YouTube content, explicitly distinguishing between searching for videos (default) and channels. It also mentions returning IDs needed for other tools, which sets it apart from sibling tools that are more specialized.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool (finding videos or channels) and explicitly instructs to set 'type' to 'channel' for content creators. It implies when not to use it by the existence of sibling tools for specific tasks, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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