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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world status, yet the description still adds useful operational context: fixed page size of 20, Odysee's own relevance ordering, the fields returned (view and like counts), and a per-call cost of 1 credit. It doesn't explain pagination termination or rate limiting beyond cost, keeping it short of a 5.

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 the action and enriched with concrete details (20 per page, credit cost). The opening 'Search videos.' is mildly redundant with the sentence that follows it, a small inefficiency in an otherwise tight definition.

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 and only three parameters, the description does a good job telling the agent what comes back (view/like counts), how results are ordered, page size, and cost. The only real gap is the undocumented cache_max_age parameter, which an agent may not know how to set correctly.

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 67%: query and cursor are documented in the schema, while cache_max_age has no description anywhere. The description does not compensate for that gap or add detail about how the cursor pairs with the 20-per-page behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the work.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Search videos') plus the platform ('Odysee videos') and characterizes the result set (view and like counts). It differentiates itself from odysee_channelVideos by emphasizing keyword matching, though it never explicitly names that sibling as the channel-scoped alternative.

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 statement and no named alternative among the many sibling search tools (youtube_search, rumble_search, peertube_search) or Odysee-specific tools like odysee_channelVideos. The intent to use this for keyword discovery is only implied by the phrase 'matching a keyword'.

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