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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful traits — cross-video search, relevance ranking, timestamped excerpt output — but says nothing about default result count, result caps, ranking behavior, or whether results are read-only/paginated. Adequate but incomplete for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 tight sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the usage guidance second. Every phrase earns its place, no padding or restated boilerplate.

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 search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is complete on purpose and usage but leaves parameter behavior (especially limit and the filter enums) and result-set characteristics undocumented. Minimum viable given the tool's complexity.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description should compensate, yet it mentions none of them — not the limit cap/default, not that topic/audience/category/contentType act as filters, not the enum semantics. The self-describing enum values carry the load, but the description adds no parameter meaning.

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 transcript passages) and immediately describes the return shape: relevant timestamped excerpts across multiple videos. It implicitly but clearly distinguishes itself from metadata-level siblings like search_videos by noting answers 'may not appear in a title or summary.'

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?

Gives explicit use cases (evidence, quotations, implementation details, questions not answerable from title/summary), which effectively routes the agent away from the summary/title siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when NOT to use this one.

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