search_videos

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 disclosing behavior. It does not state whether the search is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what the output looks like. It only mentions the use of yt-dlp extractors, which is a minor detail but not sufficient for a tool with zero annotations.

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, concise sentence that gets to the point. It is appropriately brief, but it could arguably include more useful details without becoming verbose. It is not bloated, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral context.

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 and no additional description, the tool lacks a clear statement of return value structure. The description is minimal and does not mention what the search results will look like or how the extractor parameter affects results. It is adequate for a simple search tool, but leaves gaps in expectations.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the parameter semantics adequately, though the description does not enhance them.

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 action ('Search for videos') and the mechanism ('using yt-dlp's extractors'). It is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools like download_video or get_video_info, which involve retrieval or actions on specific videos rather than searching.

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 for searching videos, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The differentiation from sibling tools is not articulated, so an agent must infer the intended context.

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