search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search' gives no indication of whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's paginated (though cursor parameter suggests it might be), what format results are returned in, or any rate limits. The description provides zero behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 'Search' is certainly concise, this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. A single word description fails to communicate essential information that would help an AI agent use the tool correctly. The description doesn't earn its place by providing any value beyond the tool name.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what's being searched, how results are structured, when to use this versus other search tools, or any behavioral characteristics. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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. The description adds no additional semantic information about the parameters beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone, though the description contributes nothing.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 multiple sibling tools that appear to perform various types of searches (channel_search, video_related_contents, etc.), the description fails to indicate what makes this 'search' tool distinct or appropriate for specific contexts.

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