search_brain

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

With no annotations, the description discloses two important behavioral constraints: it never generates an answer and never contacts YouTube. However, it omits other behavioral details such as pagination, sorting, or error handling, so transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences with no filler. Both sentences convey meaningful constraints and purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has three parameters and no annotations, yet the description offers minimal guidance. Even with an output schema, the lack of parameter semantics and usage context leaves the agent under-equipped to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of query, limit, or brain_id. The agent must infer semantics solely from parameter names and defaults, which is insufficient.

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 returns ranked, timestamped caption evidence, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from answer-generating tools and YouTube contact, differentiating it from siblings like get_video_transcript.

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 implied context (retrieval-focused, not answer generation) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives. It doesn't say when to prefer search_brain over list_brain_videos or get_video_transcript.

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