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

Annotations already mark it read-only and open-world, so the bar is lower; the description adds real value by disclosing the Sepia-based index, the 50-per-page page size, the incomplete instance coverage, and the 1-credit cost. It stops short of describing result shape or pagination mechanics beyond page size.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the cost/coverage caveats following. Minor redundancy between 'Search videos.' and the next sentence naming the same action again.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries more burden for return values; it gives page size and coverage limits but not what a result entry contains or how cursor termination works. Cost and index scope round it out, but a searcher-agent still lacks return-shape guidance.

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%, so the schema documents query and cursor well. The description adds the page-size context relevant to cursor paging, but says nothing about cache_max_age, which is undocumented in the schema as well — a gap left unfilled.

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) plus the precise scope: public videos across PeerTube instances via Sepia Search. That scope cleanly separates it from siblings like peertube_video, peertube_channel, or youtube_search without needing their schemas.

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 implied by 'Search videos' and the coverage caveat tells the agent the result set may be incomplete, which is useful. However, it never names an alternative or states when to pick this over a direct peertube_video lookup or another platform's search.

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