Server has 12 tools with consistent naming (verb_noun pattern) and documented schemas. All tools are READ_ONLY and properly typed. However, descriptions are terse (avg ~50 chars, well below the 194-char baseline), parameter descriptions lack depth, and output schemas are not explicitly documented in the tool definitions. Error handling is minimal, no recovery guidance or actionable error messages visible. Tool composition is sound (single responsibility), but descriptions do not explain WHEN to use each tool vs. similar ones (e.g., search vs. search_transcripts vs. search_passages).

• Expand tool descriptions to 100 - 200 chars. Include WHEN to use each tool. E.g., 'Search transcripts by title, channel, or content keywords. Use this for broad keyword searches; use semantic_search for meaning-based queries.'
• Document output schemas for all tools. Add a 'Returns' section to each description or include a response_schema field. E.g., search returns [{id, title, url}]; fetch returns {id, title, text, url, metadata}.
• Consolidate overlapping search tools. Rename search_transcripts → search_by_metadata and search_passages → search_within_transcripts to clarify scope. Or merge into a single search with a 'scope' parameter (title|content|passages).
• Add error handling guidance. E.g., 'If video_id not found, returns {error: "not_found", available_ids: [...]}. Try list_transcripts() to discover valid IDs.'
• Embed min/max constraints in parameter descriptions. E.g., 'limit (1 - 25, default 10)' instead of relying on code constants. This makes constraints visible to LLMs without reading implementation.