Search videos

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a separate 100-calls-per-day allowance distinct from the shared 10,000-unit pool, which directly shapes agent behavior. It doesn't cover pagination or result caps beyond the schema's default.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: the enriched-output differentiator comes first, the usage intent second, and the quota constraint last. No filler and no repetition of the tool name or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description does part of the return-value job by naming the attached metrics, and it covers the quota-cost dimension thoroughly. For an 8-parameter tool at 63% coverage, a few parameters (order, published_before) remain undocumented anywhere, leaving a small gap.

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 63%, and the description contributes little parameter-level detail beyond implying that stats (views, likes, duration) are joined into results, which is the context for min_views. Parameters like 'order' and 'published_before' are left entirely to the schema, so this sits at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search YouTube') plus a differentiator that matters: results come back WITH view counts, likes and duration attached, unlike plain API search. An agent immediately knows this is the enriched-search tool, distinct from get_video or list_my_videos.

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?

Gives a clear selection rule ('use this whenever you need to judge whether a result actually performed rather than just matched') and a caution against casual use ('use it deliberately rather than as a first guess'). It stops short of naming a specific sibling tool as the alternative for simple lookups, so it's strong context but not fully explicit routing.

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