youtube_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool routes through Piped with an Invidious fallback, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not specify return format, pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements, leaving the agent under-informed about consequences.

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 a single sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a small amount of backend detail, making it highly 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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It explains the tool's purpose but leaves the agent without guidance on how to use the filter enum, what the limit controls, or what the result format will be. For a tool with three parameters, more context is needed.

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?

The input schema defines three parameters (query, filter, limit) but the description provides no additional meaning for any of them. The verb 'search' implies the query parameter, but filter and limit semantics remain entirely unspecified. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 clear action 'Search' on the resource 'YouTube' and names the backend services (Piped with Invidious fallback). This distinguishes it from sibling tools youtube_video and youtube_play, which are about single videos or playback. The agent can easily tell this is the search tool.

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 gives an implied use case (searching YouTube) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over youtube_video or youtube_play, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. It lacks the explicit routing found in high-quality definitions.

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