search_youtube

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

The description explicitly discloses the cost ('Costs 1 TranscriptAPI credit'), which is a useful behavioral trait not present in annotations. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not mention other relevant behaviors such as whether results are paginated, rate limits, or any access requirements.

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, compact sentence that communicates purpose, result scope, and cost without any filler. Every element earns its place.

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 simple search tool with complete parameter documentation and an output schema, the description conveys the essential purpose and an important cost signal. It does not discuss usage nuances relative to siblings, but that is a secondary gap given the tool's low complexity and existing schema coverage.

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 input schema already fully documents all parameters with descriptions, defaults, and the allowed result_type values. The description's mention of 'videos or channels' mirrors the schema's result_type documentation without adding substantial new meaning beyond what structured data already provides.

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 ('Search') with a clear resource ('YouTube') and scope ('videos or channels'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve specific channel or playlist content. This is immediately actionable.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use search_youtube versus the sibling tools like get_channel_videos, get_channel_latest, or get_playlist_videos. The description implies search is general-purpose but does not explain the tradeoffs or when a user should prefer a more targeted sibling tool.

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