search_brain

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the return shape (short snippets, each with a timestamp URL), mandates citations of title + URL, and warns that brain_completeness below 100% means results may be missing videos. It omits operational traits like rate limits, error behavior, or whether results are ranked, so not 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the imperative to use it before answering from memory. Every sentence adds either a directive, a citation requirement, or a data-quality caveat — nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still usefully explains the snippet/URL citation contract and the brain_completeness caveat, which the schema alone would not convey. The main omission for a three-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations is any statement about result count (limit) or missing-field semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does for two of three parameters: query should be plain words (illustrated with 'protein per day for muscle gain') and creators takes a slug list (illustrated with 'jeremy-ethier'). The limit parameter (default 8) is never mentioned, leaving one gap.

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 pair — search creators' transcripts and verified claims — which an agent can immediately distinguish from siblings like compare_creators, get_topic, and brain_graph. The parenthetical framing as a pre-answer lookup step further pins down what the tool is for.

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?

Explicitly says to call it BEFORE answering from memory, which is a strong, actionable trigger. It also gives narrowing guidance (creators=['jeremy-ethier']) and a query-phrasing tip. It stops short of naming when to prefer a sibling such as compare_creators or list_topics, so no explicit exclusions.

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