search_youtube

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what format results return. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this complete lack of behavioral information is inadequate.

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 maximally concise at just two words, with zero wasted language. While this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness, the description is perfectly front-loaded and contains no unnecessary verbiage. Every word earns its place, even if more content would be beneficial.

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 complexity of a search operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't explain what the tool actually returns (video results? metadata?), how results are structured, or any behavioral characteristics. For a search tool with rich sibling alternatives, more context is needed.

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 provides no parameter information whatsoever, but the input schema has 100% description coverage with clear documentation for both parameters (query and maxResults). Since schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score of 3 applies even without parameter details in the description. The schema adequately documents what each parameter does.

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 'Search YouTube' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what kind of search this performs (videos, channels, playlists?), what scope it covers, or how it differs from sibling tools like search_music. While the verb 'search' is clear, the resource 'YouTube' is too broad without further qualification.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like search_music, get_video_info, and detect_topics available, there's no indication whether this is for general video search, how it differs from search_music, or what contexts warrant its use. The description offers zero usage context or exclusions.

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