search_channels_videosplaylists

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions quota cost (1 unit) and implies additional costs for certain parameters, which is valuable. However, it doesn't describe response format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or authentication requirements that would be important 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?

The description is efficiently structured in a single sentence that communicates the core functionality plus quota information. However, it could be more front-loaded by stating the primary purpose more prominently before mentioning quota details.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic functionality and quota implications but lacks information about response format, error handling, and how this tool differs from similar sibling tools in the server.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions, such as explaining relationships between parameters or providing usage examples.

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 clearly states the tool searches a channel's videos and playlists while also retrieving channel details, providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'channel_videos', 'channel_playlists', or 'search', which all handle similar content types.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'channel_videos', 'channel_playlists', or the general 'search' tool. It mentions quota cost but offers no contextual usage recommendations or exclusions.

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