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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: natural-language query understanding (synonyms, typos), the returned data types (metadata, thumbnail and watermarked preview URLs, page links, prices), and the guarantee that footage is real, not AI-generated. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The geographic and temporal details are relevant to search scoping, and the query-capability and return-value sentences earn their place. It is informative without being verbose, though the location list could be trimmed without losing essential meaning.

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?

Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description provides a solid overview of the tool's purpose, query behavior, and return contents. It does not explain pagination or sorting, but those are documented in the input schema. It gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly for a search task.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions query flexibility and synonyms, which aligns with the `query` parameter, but it does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already describes (e.g., 'Places and years in the query become filters'). The schema carries the full parameter load.

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 'Search footage.cool's library' – a specific verb and resource – and details the collection's content, scope, and provenance. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_catalog_overview, get_clip_details, or license_clip, which perform different operations.

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 description implies usage as the search tool and gives querying tips ('Understands place names, years, synonyms...'), but it never explicitly states when not to use it or names alternatives such as get_catalog_overview for category browsing or find_similar_footage for similarity. No when/when-not guidance is provided.

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