channel_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Channel Search' reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's paginated (though cursor parameter suggests it might be), rate limits, or what the response format looks like. This is completely inadequate for a search tool.

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?

While technically concise with just two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to communicate essential information that would help an AI agent understand and use the tool correctly, making it inefficient despite its brevity.

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 search tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool searches for, what it returns, how results are structured, or how it differs from other search/channel tools. The agent would have insufficient context to use this tool effectively.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds zero additional information about parameter semantics, usage patterns, or relationships between parameters. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description contributes nothing beyond what's already in structured fields.

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 'Channel Search' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful information about what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being searched (e.g., YouTube channels), what the search returns, or how it differs from the 'search' sibling tool.

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 provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 18 sibling tools including a generic 'search' tool, there's no indication of what makes 'channel_search' distinct or appropriate for specific contexts versus other search or channel-related tools.

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