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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on pagination behavior, result freshness, or rate limits — so it contributes no behavioral context of its own.

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?

It is a single short phrase, so nothing is wasted, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The core intent is front-loaded, yet the sentence carries almost no information beyond the tool name.

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 need no explanation, and the annotations plus a fully documented input schema cover the mechanics. What is missing is any usage context or disambiguation from the many sibling search tools, leaving a gap for an agent choosing among providers.

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% with all five parameters (Query, Page, Count, Country, Language) fully documented in the schema, including defaults and clamping ranges. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The phrase names a specific resource and action (video search) and the 'video' qualifier distinguishes it from bing_search, bing_images, bing_news, and bing_suggest. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no scope details (e.g., web video results vs. a specific platform), so it falls 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternative tools. It doesn't say to prefer brave_videos or google_videos under any condition, nor when a general bing_search would be more appropriate. Usage is only inferable from the name.

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