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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results open the Specials list including empty specials, discovery mode selects transcript-reviewed specials rather than every track, and catalog totals are not verified runtimes. However, it omits pagination limits and result-shape behavior, so it is solid but not exhaustive.

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 definition is dense and front-loaded, leading with the core search semantics before edge cases and follow-up steps. A few sentences drift into output-formatting instructions ('keep accompanying prose brief', 'Format durations in hours/minutes/seconds') that are useful but sit awkwardly in a search tool description.

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 explained, and the description still covers discovery mode, empty results, pagination continuation and the runtime-totals caveat. The unexplained limit parameter and the absence of any note on default result count leave a small but real gap for a 9-parameter tool.

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?

With only 22% schema description coverage, the description carries most of the burden and does so well: it explains that query matches one literal case-insensitive phrase across title/description/comedian/track titles, that comedianId must be a returned ID, that year is exact while yearFrom/yearTo form a range, and that topicSlug/styleSlug come from list_comedy_topics and compose with the other filters. The limit parameter is never explained, which is the main gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find a special by keywords in its title, description, comedian name or related track titles') and enumerates the filter dimensions. It clearly separates itself from siblings by naming get_comedy_special and list_comedy_topics as the tools for adjacent steps.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: browse with no query, use get_comedy_special to inspect track titles before identifying a track, open a returned ID for details, clarify ambiguous matches, and continue with nextOffset while keeping filters unchanged. It also states what the search does NOT cover (spoken routine text, semantic topics).

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