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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the credit cost, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only (though 'search' implies it) or mention pagination/result limits beyond the schema's `limit` field. It does not describe edge cases or error behavior. This is an adequate but minimal disclosure for a simple tool.

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?

Two compact sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by a use-case hinteb, then identifier formats and cost. Zero filler, every phrase contributes.

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, the description is mostly adequate, but it omits what the response looks like (no output schema). An agent would not know whether the result is a list of video titles, URLs, or IDs. Also missing are error conditions (e.g., invalid channel handle). Given the lack of an output schema, this gap is notable.

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?

Schemas cover all 3 parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one meaningful insight to the `channel` parameter — accepting @handle, channel URL, or UC… id — though this is already stated in the schema's description of the channel field. It adds no other semantic value beyond the schema, so it stays 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: searching within a single channel's uploads for videos on a given topic. This immediately distinguishes it from the sibling `get_channel_videos` (which lists the entire archive) and `search_youtube` (global search). Specific verb + resource + scope.

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?

Provides a clear use case: researching a topic within a known channel without sifting through the full archive. This effectively implies when to choose this tool over `get_channel_videos`, but it does not name alternatives or give explicit

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