search_videos

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

No annotations, so the description carries the load, and it adds real operational context: one-keyword restriction, the observed limit cap of 50, and the warning that numResults is a fixed ceiling of 1000 rather than a true total. It does not mention pagination behavior or how page interacts with limit, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and each line carries a distinct instruction (what it returns, when to use, caps, what not to do). The numResults note is slightly opaque out of context and could be tightened.

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; the description still adds the useful ceiling caveat. Coverage is nearly complete for a 3-parameter search tool, with only page semantics missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains keyword (single keyword only) and limit (hard cap 50), but the page parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (search videos with exactly one keyword) and immediately scopes the return payload as full metadata that needs no follow-up calls. It also distinguishes itself from siblings get_metadata/scan_topic by naming the alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use cases (probe an unfamiliar word family's coverage, or supplement after scan_topic) and explicit when-not-to-use (don't loop-call this for broad scanning; use scan_topic). Nothing is left to inference.

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