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 genuinely useful behavior: that matching happens against transcript bodies as well as titles, so hits can appear without the keyword in the title. It says nothing about result ordering, ranking, or the default 7-day window beyond what the schema states.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the matching detail immediately after. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should hint at what results look like (video records? snippets? ranking?) so an agent can decide whether to follow up with get_transcript. That gap keeps it at adequate rather than complete.

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 100%, including defaults and max for limit and the since window format, so the baseline is 3. The description's note on what the query text is matched against is the only added meaning; it contributes nothing for limit or since.

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 through videos') plus an explicit scope ('from your monitored channels') and the matching fields ('video titles and full transcript text'). This separates it from get_recent_videos and get_transcript, though it never names those siblings directly.

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 the scope phrase 'monitored channels' and by the search semantics, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as get_keyword_matches or get_recent_videos for keyword-driven or recency-based retrieval.

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