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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds pagination behavior and what the results contain (multi-resolution file URLs, duration, videographer), which is useful context, but it does not cover rate limits or result caps.

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 that front-loads the action and required input, then summarizes the return payload. No wasted clauses.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes them helpfully. For a simple one-parameter search tool, this is nearly complete; a mention of result limits or pagination parameters would close the remaining gap.

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?

Only one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, but the description compensates minimally by naming it a keyword and marking it required. No format, matching, or length guidance is given beyond what the required-array already conveys.

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) plus resource (Pexels videos) and the required input (keyword), which is clear and actionable. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like video, video_popular, or photo_search, so it stops 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?

Usage is implied by the required keyword and the paginated-result framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as video_popular or photo_search. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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