duckduckgo_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return format (title, destination URL, description, duration, thumbnail, publisher, published time, view count), pagination behavior, and the data source (DuckDuckGo's own video JSON API). This goes beyond minimal details, though it does not mention rate limits or error conditions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. It lists return fields compactly without unnecessary fluff.

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 that there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields and explaining pagination and data source. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and what to expect, though it could optionally mention potential limitations like default region behavior.

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%, so the schema already documents q, page, and region. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it implies q is a query string and that 'page-based pagination' relates to the page parameter, but it does not enhance understanding of the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Search DuckDuckGo video results.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like duckduckgo_image, duckduckgo_news, and google_videos by specifying video results. The expected output fields (title, URL, duration, etc.) further clarify the tool's purpose.

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 states the primary use case ('Search DuckDuckGo video results') and clarifies that results are normalized video data, implying when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives (e.g., 'for web search use duckduckgo_search'), so it lacks the explicit alternative guidance that would merit a 5.

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