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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small behavioral detail with 'as link-outs', signaling the results are links rather than embedded video files, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, or the meaning of empty results.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundancy, which is appropriately concise. However, it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence, and the compactness comes at the cost of omitting useful context about parameters and behavior.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and a single-sentence description, important context is missing: what a link-out looks like, how limit affects results, whether the videos are curated or algorithmic, and how this differs from search_videos. The description is too sparse to fully prepare an agent to call the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It never mentions documentId by name (only indirectly implies it through 'related to an archive document'), and limit is entirely absent. The schema's default and minimum values remain the only source of meaning for limit.

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 title 'Find videos related to a document' clearly states the operation and resource, and the description narrows it to 'Commentary videos related to an archive document'. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from siblings like related_documents, though it overlaps conceptually with search_videos without stating the difference.

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?

The phrase 'related to an archive document' implies this tool is used when you already have a documentId and want commentary videos tied to it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, nor any alternative tool named or compared, leaving the agent to infer the selection logic.

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