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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: keyword search reaches INTO transcripts and flags hits as `matched_in: 'transcript'` with a `transcript_snippet`, plus the AND-combination of filters.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: scope first, then keyword/transcript behavior, then the get_video pointer. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical is slightly dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly describes the notable return fields (matched_in, transcript_snippet). For an 8-param, 0-required search tool with rich schema coverage, this is nearly complete; only pagination/result-shape breadth is left implicit.

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 high (88%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantics on top: it explains that keyword spans title, abstract and transcript, and that filters combine with AND, which goes beyond the raw parameter list.

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 (search) plus resource (Africa Multiple YouTube channel videos), and scopes it precisely (~140 lectures, interviews, events; most with transcripts). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_video by assigning detail retrieval there.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative for detail work ('Use get_video for one video's detail and the transcript itself') and notes that filters are optional and AND-combined. It doesn't address when to prefer this over the general 'search' or other search_* siblings, so it stops 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.