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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — only 'published' tools are returned — but says nothing about result ordering defaults, empty-result behavior, or how cursoring works in practice.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, but its terseness is also the source of the guidance and return-value gaps, so it stops short of ideal.

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?

Eight optional filters and cursor pagination make this a moderately complex tool, and there is no output schema. The description never says what comes back (a page of listing summaries plus page.nextCursor) or that filters combine, leaving the agent to guess the response shape from the cursor parameter text.

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% and every parameter (q, city, region, country, category, sort, limit, cursor) is documented in the schema with slugs, patterns and defaults. The description's 'by text, place and category' merely summarizes a subset of that, adding no semantics beyond it, so the baseline 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 (search) and resource (published AI video tools) plus the three facet families it searches by. It reads clearly as the collection-level query tool, distinct from get_listing or the list_* siblings, though it never names those alternatives.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description doesn't say to use this for keyword discovery versus list_categories/list_places for browsing facets, or get_listing for a single record, so the agent must infer routing from the sibling names alone.

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