serp_youtube_organic_live_advanced

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. It mentions 'top 20 blocks' and implies live results, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if results are real-time or cached, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the structure of returned data (since no output schema exists). For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 functionality ('provides top 20 blocks of youtube search engine results for a keyword'). It wastes no words and directly communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., live vs. cached, rate limits), usage guidelines compared to siblings, and details on output format. While the input schema is thorough, the description alone doesn't provide enough information for an agent to fully understand how to use this tool effectively in context.

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 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying keyword-based search. Since the schema handles the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the comprehensive 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'provides top 20 blocks of youtube search engine results for a keyword.' It specifies the verb ('provides'), resource ('youtube search engine results'), and scope ('top 20 blocks'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'serp_organic_live_advanced' or 'serp_youtube_video_info_live_advanced', which might offer similar or overlapping functionality.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools (e.g., 'serp_organic_live_advanced' for general SERP or other YouTube-specific tools). Without such context, an agent must infer usage based on the tool name and description alone.

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