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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the default result ordering (award winners first when no query) and the per-result payload (brand, title, year, credits, best award, logline, still, watch link). It doesn't mention pagination limits or result-count caps, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the resource, then the query examples, then the return payload — a sensible order. The long enumeration of filterable facts is dense but each item is load-bearing for a 28-param tool; only the parenthetical examples could be trimmed.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does the work by listing the fields returned per spot, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. Combined with the default-sort rule and query semantics, the definition is nearly self-sufficient; the missing piece is any statement about pagination/limit behavior for a tool that returns a list.

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?

With 28 params at 64% schema coverage, the description compensates by enumerating most filter dimensions (brand, director, agency, production, DP, editor, award show/level, year, industry, market, tone, genre, structure, season) and by explaining the most important one — 'query' as the plain-language idea/story, with worked examples. It leaves music, format, celebrity, duration bounds, person, sort and limit/offset to the schema, so coverage is good but not complete.

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?

States a specific verb (Find) plus a precisely scoped resource — 'whole COMMERCIALS (TV / online spots)' — which implicitly separates it from the sibling shot-level tools like search_commercial_shots and search_frames. It also explains the two access modes (idea/story query vs. structured facts), so an agent knows exactly what this tool returns.

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?

It gives concrete example queries and an explicit behavioral rule for the alternative mode: 'Without a query it lists matching spots, award winners first.' That clarifies query-vs-filter usage well. It stops short of naming sibling tools (e.g., directing shot-level searches to search_commercial_shots), so routing is implied by the 'whole commercials' framing rather than stated.

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