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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and network profile are covered. The description adds that results are Pexels stock videos with direct MP4 URLs, which is modest additional context. It does not describe return shape, pagination, rate limits, or whether results are cached.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no filler, and the key differentiator (direct MP4 URLs from Pexels) is front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 lookup tool with a fully described schema and safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it stops short of explaining what a caller receives (MP4 URLs to attach to Video nodes) or how to use the results, leaving a gap for an agent that needs to wire the output into add_nodes or insert_node.

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 every parameter (q, count, provider, maxDuration, minDuration, orientation) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or defaults beyond what is already present, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource ('Stock videos') and adds useful specifics (direct MP4 URLs, Pexels source, intended for Video nodes), but the verb is implied rather than stated — it never says 'find' or 'search'. Sibling tools find_image and find_icon exist, so a clearer distinction between these 'find_*' tools would help, and those aren't referenced.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The phrase 'for Video nodes' implies a context, but there is no statement of when this tool should be chosen over find_image, find_icon, or upload_file. No exclusions or constraints on usage are provided.

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