Google Shorts API

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but provides only a basic retrieval statement. It does not disclose response format, pagination behavior, how parameters like html or start affect output, or any safety/permission considerations. This is a significant gap for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 a single concise sentence with a clear verb-resource-object structure. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it easy to parse and understand the core action.

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's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the response structure beyond mentioning a few fields, nor does it address how the tool behaves with various parameters or what makes it distinct from other video search tools. The rich schema partially compensates but the description itself leaves many questions unanswered.

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 schema provides detailed descriptions for all 10 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already covers this dimension well, and the description's mention of 'sources, thumbnails, and dates' loosely aligns with expected output.

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 'Retrieve' and a clear resource 'Google short videos', and lists key returned fields (sources, thumbnails, dates). This distinguishes it as a video retrieval tool among search siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. It could have been clearer about what 'short videos' means (e.g., YouTube Shorts or general Google video results), but it is sufficiently clear.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus other video or search tools, nor any exclusions or alternative references. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing use cases.

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