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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the dataset is a curated 106-shot library, results are prompt excerpts requiring a follow-up best_prompt call, and costs assume a 5-second clip when length is unstated. It does not cover pagination or the limit cap behavior.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose and the 'use FIRST' trigger lead, then filters, then return format, then exclusions. Most sentences earn their place, though the parenthetical example list makes it longer than strictly necessary.

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 still explains what comes back (prompt excerpts) and how to escalate (best_prompt with a slug), which is the key completeness gap it closes. Missing only limit/result-count behavior and any ordering guarantees.

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 60%, and the description compensates well: it enumerates shot_type values, gives concrete model examples (kling, veo, seedance), and explains max_cost_usd including the non-obvious 5-second-clip estimation heuristic. Only limit and the plain-words query intent are left unelaborated.

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 (Search) and resource (AI Video Atlas library of 106 sourced video shots) with concrete scope and content details (real prompts, model, cost, source link). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_workflow and get_prices, which it names explicitly.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this FIRST when the user describes a shot, scene, style or job' with vivid example queries, and gives two negative exclusions routing to alternatives ('Do not use for prices alone (use get_prices) or for tools/workflows (use get_workflow)'). It also spells out the follow-up path via best_prompt.

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