youtube_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the quota cost, which is a useful operational detail, but fails to mention authentication requirements, pagination behavior, return format, or what happens with invalid search_type values. This is a partial disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a clear cost warning, then a terse and structured 'Args:' list. Every line is necessary given the lack of schema descriptions, though it is slightly verbose due to repeating parameter names.

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 search tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the search scope, quota cost, and all parameter meanings. It lacks return format and pagination details, but the provided context is sufficient 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 0%, so the description fully compensates by documenting all 8 parameters with examples and enums (e.g., search_type values, order values, ISO 8601 format, region code example). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Search YouTube for videos, channels, or playlists,' using a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like youtube_get_video, youtube_list_videos, youtube_search_suggestions, and youtube_trending. The scope is explicit and not a tautology.

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?

It includes a quota warning ('Costs 100 quota units per call — use sparingly'), which implies when to use it conservatively, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like youtube_search_suggestions or youtube_trending. No exclusions are given, only implicit context.

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