search_videos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of pagination limits, that per_page caps at 50, how results are ordered by default, or what a result set contains. For an 11-parameter search tool it contributes almost no behavioral context.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, so it is structurally fine. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity: it is concise at the cost of almost all useful detail.

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 needn't be explained, but with 11 parameters, 45% schema coverage, and numerous undocumented filters, the definition is not complete enough to guide correct invocation. At minimum it should clarify default sort behavior, licensing filters, and pagination limits.

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 only 45%, with safe, sort, license, resolution, orientation, and aspect_ratio undocumented in the schema. The description does not compensate for any of these gaps, leaving enum-bearing filters like resolution and aspect_ratio to be interpreted from their names alone.

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 (Search) and resource (Shutterstock video footage), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like search_images and search_music. It stops short of saying anything about scope or result characteristics, but the tool's identity is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as search_images, search_editorial, or find_similar, and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer selection criteria entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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