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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are 'ranked' (relevance ordering), which is context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about pagination, result shape, or what happens when no match is found.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a compact filter vocabulary. The semicolon-separated value lists are efficient though a little raw; nothing is wasted or repeated.

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 5-parameter search tool with no output schema, the definition should say what comes back (result fields, ranking score, total count) and clarify the limit ceiling. The filter vocabularies are well covered, but the return side and the paging parameter are left entirely to inference.

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 coverage is 0% and no enums are declared, so the description does real work by listing accepted language codes and the type vocabulary (audio, video, series, course, article, book, reel) and by explaining that category takes a slug from list_categories. It leaves 'query' and 'limit' (which has a default and a max of 25 in the schema) undocumented, so it is not fully compensating.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Ranked search') and immediately enumerates the filter dimensions, so the agent knows this is a catalogue search tool rather than a fetch/retrieval tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'search' tool, which is the main gap.

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 is implied by 'optional filters' and the agent is pointed to 'list_categories' for valid category slugs, which is a useful cross-reference. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over the sibling 'search' or 'fetch', and no exclusions or preconditions are given.

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