youtube_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the return format (videos with specific fields), which is useful, but it does not mention result limits, pagination, ordering, or any potential side effects. Lacking these details, transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and return value without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's 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?

Given the simple tool with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly states what the tool returns, though it omits details like result count or pagination behavior. This is a minor gap for a straightforward search tool.

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%, so parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for 'query', 'gl', and 'hl', earning the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search YouTube via SearchApi' and lists the returned video fields (title, link, channel, views, published time, length). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like web_search or scholar_search, which target different content domains.

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 implies usage when a user wants YouTube-specific search results, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. There are no alternative tool names or conditions given, so guidance is only implicit.

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