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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: only published, reviewed references are returned; each of the first 12 results carries a signed key-frame image plus image_url and launchscene_url; filters apply per scene; scenes with unknown measurements are excluded. It does not mention pagination via cursor or result ordering behavior, which are noticeable gaps.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is and what it returns. The image sentence is dense but each sentence carries information; no filler or restatement of the title.

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 tool with a rich 18-field nested filter object and an output schema that already covers return shape, the description leaves the filter vocabulary and pagination/sorting (cursor, limit max 50, sort enum) unexplained. It is adequate on corpus scope and image behavior but incomplete on how to actually narrow results.

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 only 17% (only the `images` parameter is documented), so the description must compensate. It explains the query as a plain-language description, the and/or relationship with taxonomy filters, that images apply to the first 12 results only, and that unknown-measurement scenes are dropped by filters — but the ~18 nested filter fields (role, tone, brand, color, techniques, etc.), sort, limit, and cursor go unexplained.

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 ('Main scene search. Finds launch-video scenes') plus the two input modes (plain description and/or taxonomy filters). It implicitly claims primacy among search tools but does not name or contrast with siblings like search_videos, search_by_moment, or find_similar.

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?

'Main scene search' hints this is the default entry point, and the description says what kinds of inputs it accepts, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance despite four sibling search tools existing.

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