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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description's extra value is real: it discloses that only public, non-deprecated channels are matched, that results come back as bounded alphabetical pages with canonical links, and that channels fall within the server's explicit scope. It stops short of describing matching semantics (substring vs. token, case sensitivity) or cost/rate characteristics.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and mode choice, then behavior, then a next-step hint. Everything roughly earns its place, though 'non-deprecated' and 'bounded alphabetical pages' are compressed jargon that would benefit from one clarifying clause.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, and the description still notes canonical channel links and the open-a-channelId next step. For a three-parameter search tool this is close to complete; the remaining gap is parameter-level semantics for limit/offset.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It does partially: it clarifies that 'query' matches titles/descriptions and is optional ('browse with no query'), and that results are alphabetical and paginated, which gives context for offset/limit. However, it never explains the limit default of 3 / max of 8, the offset window, or the ordering guarantee's interaction with offset paging.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search public, non-deprecated channel titles/descriptions') plus a second mode ('browse with no query'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It partially differentiates from siblings by pointing to opening a returned channelId for videos, but never names the sibling search tools (search_comedy_videos/specials) it competes with.

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?

Usage guidance is limited to the two in-tool modes: supply a query to search, or omit it to browse. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_comedy_videos, search_comedy_specials, or get_comedy_channel, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the 'public, non-deprecated' scope.

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