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

Adds substantive context beyond the annotations: page size (50 per page), fields returned (view counts, uploading channel), and cost (1 credit). That cost and result-shape info is genuinely useful and cannot be inferred from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint. It doesn't cover rate limits or error behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose then scope then result shape and cost. No filler or repetition; every clause carries information.

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?

Covers what an agent needs to interpret results (page size, view counts, channel) without an output schema, which is helpful. However, for a 4-param tool with half the parameters undescribed, the definition leaves real gaps around sorting behavior and caching.

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?

With only 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate but adds no parameter info at all. 'sort' (enum new/old/views) and 'cache_max_age' are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving two of four parameters without any semantic guidance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search videos') and pins the platform ('Public BitChute video search'), distinguishing it from siblings like bitchute_video and bitchute_channelVideos. Slightly redundant between 'Search videos' and 'video search', but the scope is clear.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no reference to alternatives such as bitchute_channelVideos when browsing a known channel, or bitchute_video when fetching a known video. Usage is only implied by the word 'search' and 'Public'.

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