search_videos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that search is the operation and explains the raw output toggle ('returns unaltered raw YouTube Data API response'), which is useful. However, it omits authentication/quota considerations, pagination behavior, error handling, and any guarantees about the non-raw return shape, so the behavioral disclosure is only partially complete.

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 clean one-line purpose followed by a dense but efficient args list. Every parameter line earns its place and provides format, default, or allowed-value context. There is no filler and no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 7-parameter search tool with no annotations, the parameter documentation is complete and the existence of an output schema covers return-value expectations. The main missing context is operational guidance such as pagination behavior and routing between sibling search tools, but the description is functionally sufficient for constructing valid calls.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter: query, max_results with range/default, search_type allowed values, order allowed values, published_after format with example, region_code format with examples, and raw semantics. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults.

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 opens with a clear verb, resource, and scope: 'Search YouTube for videos, channels, or playlists.' This lets an agent know exactly what resource is being queried and how the tool differs from more specialized siblings like search_channels. The scope is explicit and the tool's purpose is 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 this is the general YouTube search tool, but it never says when to use it instead of sibling tools such as search_channels or get_video_details. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative-routing hints, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameter list alone.

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