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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: what fields are matched, how results are scored and ordered (relevance, then recency), and that results come with summaries. It does not state that the operation is read-only, nor anything about result shape beyond summaries or behavior when nothing matches, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 sentences, both load-bearing: the first front-loads what the tool does and how results are ranked, the second handles routing versus the sibling. No filler or redundancy.

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 4-parameter search tool with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: scope, matching fields, ordering, and routing to list_videos. The main remaining gap is return format, which is only hinted at ('with summaries').

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 100% - query, limit (default 20, hard cap 50), since (ISO 8601), and category (enum) are all documented in the schema. The description adds only indirect context by enumerating the fields the query matches against; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Full-text search over BuildFeed's curated AI/startup/VC YouTube video library') and goes further by naming the fields scored (title, topics, TLDR, channel, takeaways) and the ranking rule (relevance, then recency). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling list_videos, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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 both when-to-use ('user asks about a specific topic, person, product, or company and you need to find relevant videos with summaries') and when-not ('not when you just want to browse everything'), plus names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it. Nothing is left to inference.

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