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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that results include specific URLs, that the listing preview is deployment-dependent, and that raw transcripts are never returned.

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 description leads with the core function and then adds return details and alternative routing in four tight sentences. There is no filler, and each sentence contributes actionable information.

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 read-only search tool with five optional parameters, the description covers return values, deployment-dependent behavior, and sibling routing. The main gaps are the unexplained 'tag' parameter and pagination semantics, making it slightly incomplete but not critically so.

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?

Only 'channel' receives schema documentation, leaving 20% schema coverage, so the description must compensate for the other four parameters. It does not explain 'tag', 'page', 'pageSize', or the exact interpretation of 'query', forcing the agent to guess at pagination and filtering 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?

The description opens with 'Keyword search over indexed UAP commentary videos,' naming the verb, resource, and scope precisely. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly pointing to get_video and search_semantic, making the tool's unique role clear.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use alternatives: 'Use get_video for the full summary and analysis' and 'For conceptual rather than keyword matching, use search_semantic with kinds:["VIDEO"]'. It also sets a clear boundary with 'Raw transcripts are never returned'.

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