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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and billing, but reveals nothing about side effects, read-only nature, pagination behavior, authentication, rate limits, or result format. The lack of any safety or operational context is a critical 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?

The description is extremely brief, echoing the title and adding only group/billing info. While not verbose, it is under-specified and fails to structure content for usability. The single sentence offers no breakdown that would help an agent decide on usage or parameters.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, making it moderately complex. The description provides none of the essential context—return values, pagination logic (hasMore, cursor), default behaviors, or required fields. It is far from complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The description adds no parameter information. Schema coverage is only 50% (descriptions for count, sort_type, publish_time), leaving cursor, region, and keywords without explanations. The description does nothing to compensate for the uncovered parameters, forcing the agent to guess meanings from examples alone.

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 clearly states the tool searches a video list by keywords, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_feedList (which likely lists without search) and get_challengeSearch (which targets challenges), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The inclusion of 'by keywords' differentiates it from non-search tools.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus the many sibling search/list tools, nor does it mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. The agent is left to infer applicability from the name alone.

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