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. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on result freshness, pagination behavior, rate limits, or the fact that query text is sent to an external live index.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. Three words is too little to carry a six-parameter search tool.

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 not be described, but with six parameters at 17% coverage and no usage guidance, the definition is far from complete for an agent to invoke it correctly. It leaves locale, pagination, and result-count semantics entirely to guesswork.

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 17% (just the nocache admin flag), leaving q, lang, page, count, and country undocumented in both schema and description. The words 'video search' weakly imply a query string, but no syntax, defaults, or format for lang/country/pagination is provided, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Google video search' names a clear verb (search) and resource (Google videos), so an agent knows the operation. However, it does nothing to distinguish this tool from near-identical siblings such as bing_videos, brave_videos, duckduckgo_video, or yahoo_search_videos.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over the many other video-search siblings, nor any prerequisite or exclusion stated. The description is purely a label, leaving routing entirely to inference from the tool name.

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