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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it supports up to 100 queries per call and returns specific fields (title, channel, duration, link). Nothing in the description contradicts the annotations.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The main action is stated first, and the key limit is added in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with seven parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, main returned fields, and an important input limit. However, it does not explain pagination behavior or the meaning of the periodo enum, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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?

The input schema has no property descriptions, so the description carries more weight. It usefully clarifies that 'consultas' accepts up to 100 queries, but other parameters—pais, local, idioma, limite, pagina, and the periodo enum—are left mostly to inference from their names and values.

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 a specific verb ('Busca'), a specific resource ('vídeos no Google'), and the key output fields (título, canal, duração, link). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling search tools like busca_google_imagens or busca_google_noticias.

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 intended use case—Google video search—is clear, and the added batch constraint ('até 100 consultas por chamada') gives practical usage guidance. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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