search_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. While it mentions a timeout parameter, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., video results, metadata), whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first three words. The additional parameter information is brief and directly relevant, with zero wasted words or redundant explanations.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., video links, titles, durations), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., result count, sorting). For a search tool with no structured output documentation, this creates uncertainty for an AI agent.

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 adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which already has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. It briefly mentions the parameters but doesn't provide additional context about query formatting, timeout implications, or YouTube-specific search syntax. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('YouTube videos'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling search tools (like search_google_search or search_bing_search), which would require mentioning YouTube-specific search capabilities or results.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling search tools available (e.g., search_google_search, search_bing_search), there's no indication of when YouTube search is preferred, what makes it unique, or any prerequisites for use.

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