Google Video Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond annotations: rate-limiting by Google, block-then-wait behavior, and an RSS fallback. Return format is not described, but the output schema covers that.

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?

Three short lines with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The mixed-language phrasing ('lihat google_web_search') is slightly rough but costs no meaningful space.

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?

For a read-only scraper with an output schema, return values needn't be explained. The description covers rate limits and the engine option but leaves four of six parameters (gl, hl, num, start) unaddressed, leaving a gap for pagination and localization 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It clarifies the 'engine' parameter's allowed values (auto | http | proxy | browser) and points to google_web_search for detail, but leaves gl, hl, num, and start entirely unexplained, so compensation is partial.

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 ('Scrape') and resource ('Google Video Search (tbm=vid)') plus the returned fields (title, URL, snippet). The resource name clearly separates it from google_image_search, google_news_search, and google_web_search, though it never explicitly names a sibling it is not.

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?

Provides operational guidance ('avoid rapid repeats; when blocked, wait or switch to an RSS-based tool'), which implies when the tool fails. But it gives no explicit when-to-use vs the many other search siblings; usage is only implicit from the resource name.

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