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

Annotations cover safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not open-world). The description adds that text-only hits include snippets and full transcripts require get_video with opt-in. This is useful context about output behavior, but it does not disclose other traits like pagination, rate limits, or whether results are ranked. With annotations already handling safety, this addition is moderate value.

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 is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the search scope and a key behavioral note.

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?

Given no output schema and eight parameters with high schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context: it identifies the tool's domain, notes snippet vs. full transcript behavior, and points to get_video for full transcripts. It lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over other search tools, but overall it is complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 88%, with clear descriptions for most parameters (limit, keyword, speaker, language, year_from/year_to, playlist). The description does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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: searching video metadata and transcripts. It clarifies the content scope (metadata, transcripts, snippets), distinguishing it from generic text search tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like search_podcasts or search_publications, leaving some ambiguity for an agent that must choose among many search_* tools.

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 implies usage for searching videos but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against alternatives such as get_video or search. It does note that full transcripts require get_video with opt-in, which hints at a limitation, but lacks clear routing instructions (e.g., when to use search_videos vs. get_video directly).

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