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

Annotations already declare that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful non-obvious behavior: results are diversified to at most two per channel, and it clarifies the combined scope across video summaries, transcripts, and public articles.

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 with no wasted language. The search scope is front-loaded, followed by the filter categories and diversification behavior.

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?

The description covers purpose and most filter categories, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, it lacks sibling differentiation and leaves several filter parameters unclarified despite 0% schema description coverage.

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 compensate for undocumented parameters. It names the main filter categories—business axes, people, channels, languages, publication dates, and confidence—but does not explain limit, include_legacy, date formats, or confidence thresholds.

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-resource pairing: searching video summaries, cleaned transcripts, and indexed public articles together. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as find_evidence, compare_viewpoints, or research.

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?

The description lists supported filter categories but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It names no alternatives and gives no exclusions, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.

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