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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: what results contain (metadata, verified resolution, preview URLs, links, prices) and the guarantee that footage is real, not AI-generated.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct job: defining the collection scope, describing query understanding, and listing return contents. The information is dense but compact, with no filler, and the most critical purpose statement is front-loaded.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is searched, how queries behave, and what is returned, including previews and prices. The schema supplies parameter defaults and constraints, and annotations cover side effects, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100% across all 11 parameters, including rich query examples and the note that places and years become filters. The description adds one useful query-behavior detail (synonyms and typos) but does not need to explain each parameter because the schema handles it. 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?

The description opens with the verb 'Search' and names the exact resource (footage.cool's library), then specifies content categories, 4K masters, creator, regions, and years. This scope clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_clip_details, get_catalog_overview, and find_similar_footage without needing to name them.

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?

It provides strong context on when to use the tool: when searching a natural-language query across a specific footage library, with support for place names, years, synonyms, and typos. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or compare to sibling tools, but the intended main-search role is unambiguous.

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