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

Annotations already declare this is a safe, read-only, idempotent query, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by enumerating the returned fields (watch page URL, embed URL, first name, town, search words, profile) and disclosing the geographic ordering behavior (town -> state -> elsewhere). It omits pagination and any rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the return shape, then the ranking rule, then the caveat — a logical order with little waste. The closing "Pass on the `limits` field" sentence is ambiguous and arguably earns less than 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns — and it does so concretely, along with ordering semantics and an important limitation (no background checks). An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds genuine meaning by explaining that city/state affect ordering and that the agent should label which ordering applies when displaying a clip. The reference to "Pass on the `limits` field" is confusing and mismatches the schema's singular `limit`, a small defect.

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 and resource — finding short videos of locals doing a given kind of job — with concrete examples ("deck building", "pressure washing"). It clearly separates itself from siblings like search_local_workers and get_worker_profile by emphasizing verified clips of work being performed rather than worker listings.

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?

Implies clear usage context: every clip is verified to show the work, and the disclaimer "a clip shows how someone works, not who they are" steers the agent toward demonstration content rather than vetting. It does not, however, name an alternative sibling or state when-not-to-use conditions.

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