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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that by listing what each result contains (name, scene description, who can star, length, price, page link) and defining the empty-query case. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or how results are ranked, and never mentions the limit cap.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the capability, then filters, then return contents, then the empty-query edge case. Every sentence carries information, though the match-surface list mildly duplicates the query parameter's own schema description.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly spends a sentence on return fields, and it documents the zero-required-params edge case (empty query). Only the limit parameter's behavior and result ordering are left implicit, which is a minor gap for a simple search 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?

Schema coverage is 75% and the description largely restates the query and who filters rather than extending them. The parenthetical query examples ('locker room', 'dog bartender', 'christmas', 'couple dance') do add real search-intent guidance, but the limit parameter (default 8, max 25) is undocumented in both schema and description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Search ... live AI video trends and templates') and enumerates the match surfaces (name, meme, song, scene, topic) with concrete examples. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like top_trends or suggest_trend, despite the 'empty query lists top trends' overlap.

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?

Gives clear usage context: search by keyword with optional category/who filters, and an explicit special case that an empty query returns the current top trends. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. top_trends for browsing, list_categories for discovering category ids) or stating when not to use it.

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