search_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the search operation and scope but does not mention return format, pagination, side effects (though likely read-only), or any constraints. This lack of detail beyond the basic intent leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 extremely concise: one sentence defining the tool's action and scope, followed by a two-argument listing. All information is front-loaded and every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple 2-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential scope and parameters. However, it lacks comparison to sibling tools and does not clarify edge cases like empty results or limit behavior. Still, given the low complexity and presence of an output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: query is a search term for title, channel, or URL, and limit is the maximum result count. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema's raw types and defaults, though it could be more detailed (e.g., query matching behavior).

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 a specific action ('Search') and a defined resource scope ('ingested sources, playlists, and videos'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_knowledge which target knowledge items. It also mentions searchable attributes (title, URL, metadata), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies when to use the tool (when searching ingested media sources), but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives like search_knowledge or get_source. No exclusions or comparative guidance is provided, leaving the usage context somewhat implicit.

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