Search videos

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond those: the separate 100-calls-per-day quota versus the 10,000-unit shared pool, and the fact that results are enriched with stats. There is no contradiction with the 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?

Two dense sentences accomplish everything: the first states the purpose and value-add, the second conveys quota and usage discipline. There is no filler, and the most decision-relevant information is 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?

For an 8-parameter search tool, the description covers the core invocation context: what the results include, why to use it, and a critical quota constraint. The schema covers parameter formats like RFC 3339 and max_results defaults. A minor gap is that there is no output schema and the description only sketches the return shape (view counts, likes, duration), but that is enough for most agent decisions.

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 description does not explain any of the 8 parameters; the schema carries most of that burden, with descriptions for account, min_views, channel_id, max_results, and published_after, and an enum for order. With schema coverage at 63%, the description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so a mid-range 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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Search YouTube and get results WITH view counts, likes and duration attached' — which clearly states the action and the unique value add. It also distinguishes itself from a plain API search and from siblings like search_transcript by framing the result as performance-oriented rather than just match-oriented.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use this whenever you need to judge whether a result actually performed rather than just matched.' It also advises against casual use with 'use it deliberately rather than as a first guess.' However, it does not name a specific alternative tool to use instead, so it stops short of fully explicit when-not guidance.

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