search_video_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only restates the search operation and parameter filters. It does not disclose read-only behavior, auth requirements, rate limits, or how the archive is matched (e.g., partial match vs exact), leaving behavioral expectations mostly to inference.

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?

One crisp purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block; every line adds value and no filler. The most important scope statement is front-loaded.

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?

All five parameters are documented with allowed values and defaults, and the output schema covers return-shape expectations. The only notable gap is the absence of usage vs alternatives and explicit optionality for non-channel_id params, but invocation-critical information is present.

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 compensates by explaining every parameter: channel_id filter, query search term, module_type allowed values, status allowed values, and limit range/default. This is exactly the enrichment the schema lacks.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Search'), a precise resource ('past produced videos'), and a scope ('across your channel archive'), so an agent knows what the tool operates on. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling list_series/list_channels, but the search-vs-list distinction is fairly clear from the name and wording.

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?

No sentence tells the agent when to prefer this over list_series/list_channels or when not to use it. The parameter list implies filtering/retrieval use, but there is no explicit guidance about search semantics or alternatives.

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