serp_google_videos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states it returns results without mentioning any behavioral traits such as credit costs, data freshness, or limitations. The generic phrasing fails to inform the agent about important side effects or constraints.

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?

The description is short (two sentences) but contains redundancy: both sentences essentially repeat the same information. While there is no fluff, the content is minimal and could be consolidated into one sentence. It is not front-loaded with critical details.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain pagination, the structure of results, or how parameters like 'number' affect credit usage. The completeness is low for a tool with these capabilities.

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?

The input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to the guidelines, when schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate this.

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 description clearly states the tool searches Google Videos and returns video results. It uses a specific verb+resource combination and is distinguishable from sibling tools like serp_google_images or serp_google_search. However, it could be slightly more specific about the nature of the video results.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives (e.g., when to use serp_google_videos vs. serp_google_search for videos). No context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions is given.

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