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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the searchable corpus (main recording plus uploaded clips) and the criteria space, but says nothing about ranking, result limits, or why a read tool carries idempotentHint=false.

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 no filler; the scope qualifier and the criteria list both earn their place. It is densely packed, which slightly obscures which clause maps to which parameter.

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?

Purpose and data sources are covered, but with seven parameters at 14% schema coverage and no output schema, an agent still lacks guidance on k (result count), how criteria combine, and what the results look like. Adequate but with real gaps for a multi-filter search tool.

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 only 14% — only project_id is documented — so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'framing'/'face scale' hints at faces, 'lighting' at night, 'shapes' at circles, 'visual similarity' at like, and 'storyboard text query' at query. But the mappings are implicit and the k parameter (1–12 result cap) is never addressed.

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 (finds) and resource (shots) plus the corpus it searches (main recording and uploaded clips) and the visual dimensions available. An agent can tell this is a similarity/attribute search, though it is not explicitly distinguished from look-alike siblings such as find_visual_moments or find_footage.

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 enumeration of searchable dimensions (similarity, framing, lighting, shapes, face scale, storyboard text) implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to competing tools like find_footage, find_visual_moments, or get_shots.

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