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

Adds substantive behavior beyond the annotations: the catalog is globally shared rather than personal, view counts are snapshots taken at parse time and never refreshed, and transcripts are unavailable here with a null my_job_id meaning there is nothing to read. These are non-obvious data-scope and data-freshness traits an agent could not infer from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource definition, then the most consequential fact (shared catalog) in caps, followed by per-parameter caveats. Every sentence carries information, though the caps-heavy emphasis and repeated 'разбор' phrasing make it slightly denser than necessary.

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 7-parameter, no-output-schema list tool this covers the important ground: scope, freshness, null semantics, and where transcripts live. It does not describe the shape of returned rows or pagination defaults (page 1, per_page up to 50 are only in the schema), but the critical decision-making context is present.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by framing only_mine against the shared-catalog default and clarifying that it keys off 'the key owner's' own scenario rather than a vague 'mine'. It restates the q search fields, which the schema already covers, and offers nothing extra on page, per_page, sort, or tags.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: a catalog of parsed videos searchable by transcript, title, and author. It explicitly separates itself from analysis_get (transcripts are not returned here), which helps an agent route correctly. It stops short of distinguishing itself from other list-like siblings such as analyses_list or query_reels.

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 clear operating context: the catalog is shared across all users by default, and only_mine=true narrows it to rows where the key owner has their own scenario. It also names the correct alternative for transcript text (analysis_get with my_job_id) and warns that my_job_id may be null. No explicit exclusions against query_reels or analyses_list are given.

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