source_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals important operational traits: each source is stored in its own FalkorDB graph, YouTube videos are chunked by chapters with chapter name and timecode in results, and cross-source search merges by relevance. This is meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not cover pagination, return format details, or potential side effects.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose statement, a concise behavioral note, and a clear Args section. Every sentence adds useful information; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 description is complete for a search tool: it covers behavior, merging, YouTube chunking, and parameters. The output schema exists, so return values are likely already described elsewhere. Minor missing context includes how to obtain the full list of available source names, though a sibling tool source_list exists for that purpose.

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 explain the parameters—and it does. Query examples are given, the source filter is explained with examples and the instruction to omit it to search all, and n_results default is stated. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states a clear action and resource: 'Search indexed external sources (Telegram, YouTube, etc.)'. This is specific enough to communicate the tool's core function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like kb_search or web_fetch, relying on the reader to infer the scope of 'external sources'.

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 clear guidance on the source filter behavior: 'Without source filter, searches all sources and merges by relevance.' This tells the agent when to omit the source param and what happens in that case. It does not explicitly instruct when to use this tool over alternatives like kb_search or web_fetch, but the context is strong enough to imply usage.

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