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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results include direct watch links and second-level timestamps, and that search supports multiple fields. However, it lacks details on result ordering, pagination, behavior of boolean filters, or any access constraints, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core action. It avoids waste and includes useful examples without bloat, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a solid overview but omits details on how filters combine, response format beyond links, and default behavior of optional parameters. It is adequate but not thorough enough for full situational context.

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 57%, leaving limit, action_only, and romance_only without descriptions. The description partially compensates by explaining search dimensions (dialogue, character, emotion, scene type) and providing examples. It does not address filter semantics fully, so parameter meaning is not fully clarified beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool searches scenes in StreamBridge video library with second-level timestamps. It lists multiple search dimensions (dialogue, character name, emotion, scene type) and outcomes (direct watch links), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_content_catalog or get_episode_info.

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 description implies usage for finding specific scenes, giving clear context that this is a scene-level search rather than catalog or episode listing. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference alternatives, though the purpose itself provides sufficient guidance for most cases.

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