Search YouTube videos

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return fields but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or how maxResults and account parameters affect behavior. It also doesn't describe the result format or pagination. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and return fields. There is zero fluff, and every word contributes to understanding. It is appropriately concise for a tool of this simplicity.

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, the description provides the essential return fields, which is helpful given there is no output schema. However, it omits details about default values (maxResults), pagination behavior, or how the account parameter is used. The absence of any usage guidance and behavioral transparency makes it only minimally complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (query, account, maxResults), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra meaning to these parameters beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, so this score is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: searching YouTube and returning titles, IDs, and channels. The verb 'Search' and the resource 'YouTube' are specific, and the return fields are enumerated. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_video or my_videos, the purpose is unambiguous and sufficient for an agent to understand its core capability.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., google_youtube_get_video, google_youtube_my_videos, google_youtube_list_playlists), an agent would benefit from explicit notes such as 'Use this to search for videos; use get_video for details on a specific video.' The description only states what the tool does, not when it is the right choice.

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