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

The description simply says 'Search', implying a read-like operation, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, suggesting possible side effects. It also does not disclose whether the search is synchronous, whether it creates a search job, or how it relates to vivu_get_search_results. This opacity is a notable gap for a non-readOnly tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is concise, though it is perhaps too terse to fully compensate for missing behavioral and usage context.

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 moderately complex tool with a rich schema and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits any relationship to vivu_get_search_results and does not explain the search workflow, which leaves an agent guessing about sequencing and optional follow-up calls.

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?

All four parameters already have descriptions in the input schema, so the schema carries the semantic weight. The tool description adds no additional meaning about project_id, query, mode, or maximum_results, which keeps this at the baseline 3.

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 ('Search'), a resource ('a cloud video project'), and an intended outcome ('matching moments'). It is specific enough to distinguish from create/delete/list siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from vivu_get_search_results, which could be a closely related retrieval operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, especially vivu_get_search_results. The description does not mention prerequisites, whether results are returned directly, or whether a separate retrieval step is needed after searching.

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