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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, yet the description describes a pure retrieval operation (搜索视频结果 / 筛选视频) with no destructive semantics. The description also omits anything beyond the schema — cost/credits, the 5-minute cache behavior, output format, pagination — so the behavioral profile is left contradictory rather than clarified.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action (searching Bing Videos) followed by the filter facets; nothing is padded or redundant. The facet list is dense but each item earns its place by mapping to real parameters.

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 12 parameters but a fully-documented schema and existing annotations, most calling information is carried by structured fields, so the terse trigger sentence is minimally adequate. However, for a scraper tool with no output schema, the description says nothing about the returned result shape, credit consumption, or caching, leaving real gaps.

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%, with all 12 parameters (q, cc, mkt, date, json, first, price, length, setlang, no_cache, resolution, source_site) documented including allowed values in the schema itself. The description only restates the filter categories at a high level, adding no syntax or default information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (搜索) and resource (Bing Videos 的视频结果) and enumerates the filterable facets, so an agent can tell it apart from bing_images/bing_news/google_videos at a glance. It is framed as a trigger condition rather than an action statement, and it never names a sibling to differentiate against, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

The entire sentence is a when-to-use clause: use this when the user wants video results from Bing Videos or wants to constrain results by duration, date, resolution, source site, price, country or language. There is no when-not guidance and no explicit alternative (e.g. youtube_video, google_videos), which is what separates it from a 5.

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