video-research-mcp

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description adds valuable context about the assessment methodology by specifying the return structure includes 'tier, confidence, and reasoning,' indicating a structured evaluative framework rather than simple boolean validation.

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 docstring-style format (one-line summary + Args + Returns) is efficiently structured and front-loaded. While the Args/Returns sections partially duplicate the schema, they provide a readable overview without excessive verbosity.

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 simple parameter structure (3 primitives, no nesting), presence of output schema, and clear annotations, the description adequately covers operational context. It appropriately omits detailed return value documentation since output schema exists, focusing instead on the assessment semantics.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The Args section largely duplicates the schema descriptions ('Statement to verify' vs schema's 'The claim to assess') without adding significant semantic depth regarding formats, constraints, or evaluation criteria for the sources.

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 specific action ('Assess a claim against sources') and distinct output ('evidence tier and confidence'), distinguishing it from sibling retrieval tools like research_web or research_paper_search by focusing on verification/judgment rather than search.

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?

While the description implies usage contexts (fact-checking, verification workflows) through the phrase 'Assess a claim,' it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over similar analysis tools like research_deep or content_analyze, nor does it mention prerequisites for the sources parameter.

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