recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses search algorithm (BM25), output format (relevant passages with timestamps and deep links), and relevance ordering. As a read-only search tool, this is adequate behavioral disclosure.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value, though the first two sentences are somewhat redundant ('Search everything...' and 'Full-text search...') but not bloated.

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 search tool with an output schema (not shown), the description explains return values and usage. It lacks details on `limit` semantics and scope (e.g., whether 'everything' is user-specific), but overall it is sufficiently complete for a low-complexity tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not directly explain `limit` or define `query` beyond an example. The example implies query is a natural language question, but `limit` is entirely omitted, leaving parameter semantics under-specified.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Search everything ever watched or listened to.' It further specifies full-text BM25 search across indexed transcripts, distinguishing from siblings like 'transcript' (retrieving one transcript) or 'library' (listing).

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this to answer questions like "what did that video say about X?"' and instructs to answer from returned passages with citations. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the use case is clear.

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