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

Adds behavior the annotations cannot express: a 1-credit cost, a 12-hour cache window that makes repeat searches free, and the notable policy that a zero-result search is not charged. This is exactly the billing/rate context an agent needs before spending credits, and it is consistent with readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, and every clause carries information (inputs, ranking, cost model). It is a single dense sentence packing several ideas with dashes, which is efficient but slightly crammed rather than maximally scannable.

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 6-parameter, all-optional search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, ranking, and cost. Return shape is not described, but ranking (views per day) is disclosed and the output schema's absence is only a minor gap given how much is already explained.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond it: the niche parameter is a template id that triggers its own curated searches (example: talent-show) and is presented as an alternative to the free query. Ranking semantics (views per day) are also stated, which the schema does not convey.

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+resource ('Find recent viral YouTube videos') plus the ranking criterion (views per day) and the scope (for a niche template id or free query). It also names downstream consumers (create_short / start_clipper), which separates it from the listing/generation siblings at a glance.

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?

Explains when to reach for it (sourcing material for create_short / start_clipper) and gives the two input modes: a curated niche template id or a free query. It does not state explicit exclusions, e.g. when to prefer get_clip_plan or list_templates instead, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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