search_videos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the output fields (titles, channels, views, URLs), which is helpful. However, it does not mention whether results are sorted, paginated, limited to public videos, or if any side effects occur. Basic behavior is disclosed, but not deep behavioral context.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Search for videos') and immediately follows with the return fields. Every word adds value; there is no repetition or filler.

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 search tool with a clear schema and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and the main input. It does allude to max_results via the schema, and the sibling names give context. Missing details like result sorting or pagination are not critical for basic usage.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description only reinforces the 'query' parameter by stating 'by query' but adds no meaning beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb and resource: 'Search for videos on YouTube by query.' It also lists the return fields (titles, channels, views, URLs), which helps an agent understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_video_details, so it lacks differentiation but remains unambiguous.

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 implies usage for searching videos by query, but provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_video_details or get_playlist_videos. There are no explicit use cases, exclusions, or conditions for choosing this tool.

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