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 adds real context: the results are public videos only, drawn from Hook Detector's measured runs, and the call is free. It says nothing about pagination via cursor, result limits, or whether an api_key is required, which are material behaviors for a 13-parameter search endpoint.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with the purpose front-loaded, so there is little padding. But the fragment 'with no run: words by text and meaning, or browse' is syntactically broken and forces the reader to reconstruct the meaning, which is wasted effort rather than concision.

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 no explanation, and the filter dimensions are broadly covered. For a 13-parameter tool with no annotations, though, the description leaves pagination (cursor), the limit cap (schema max 50) and the api_key requirement unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 31%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it maps the dimensions of 'multiple', 'views', 'long or short', 'recency', 'channel size' and 'language' onto the min/max_multiple, min/max_views, content_type, posted_within_days, channel_size and language parameters. It also conveys that q searches 'by text and meaning' (semantic), which the schema does not say. It omits sort, limit and cursor semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: search a shared index of public YouTube videos measured by Hook Detector runs. The phrase 'with no run:' signals it is scoped to the cross-run index rather than a single run, which differentiates it from per-run siblings like find_hooks. The sentence is garbled enough that the exact scope needs a second read, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

'or browse' implies that omitting q switches to browse mode, and 'Free' tells the agent there is no credit cost, so some usage context is present. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance for choosing this over find_hooks or find_long_hooks. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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