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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: 50 results per page, a hard 1,000-result ceiling that terminates paging, and a 1-credit cost. The credit cost and hard cap are exactly the kind of operational facts an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, page size, the hard result ceiling, and cost. The action is front-loaded and there is no filler or restatement of the name.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully covers the pagination lifecycle (page size, termination point) and the credit cost, which is what an agent needs to plan iteration. It does not hint at the shape of returned records at all, but for a search tool with a fully enumerated query param, that is a minor omission.

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 75%, near the threshold where the schema does the heavy lifting, and 'cursor' is already explained as 'pagination.cursor from the previous response'. The description never clarifies how the stated 50-per-page interacts with cursor paging, and 'cache_max_age' has no description anywhere, so the description does not compensate for the gap. Baseline 3 fits.

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+resource ('Search videos') and scopes it to 'Public Dailymotion video search', which separates it from the many other *_search siblings in the toolset. It stops short of naming the within-platform alternatives (dailymotion_channel, dailymotion_video), but the platform+action pairing is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers you call this to find Dailymotion videos by keyword. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no guidance on when to pick this over dailymotion_channelVideos or a different platform's search. The pagination ceiling is informative but is not selection guidance.

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