video_search

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses the beta status and access requirement, and states the output format (ranked results with fields). It does not mention potential rate limits or auth details beyond beta, but the read-only nature is implied by 'find'. This is above average for a search tool.

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 two sentences plus a keyword list. It front-loads the main purpose and usage guidance, then adds keywords for discoverability. Every element serves a purpose; no fluff or redundancy.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior (returns, beta access, when to use). It does not explain timeout/count defaults (though schema covers them) or interaction between time_range and absolute times (also in schema). It's complete enough for a search tool, but additional detail on result limitations or pagination would push it higher.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only repeats 'Pass a text query' and does not add extra semantics like parameter syntax or interplay (e.g., time_range vs absolute times) beyond what's already in the schema. It does not compensate beyond the schema.

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 tool finds videos by text query and lists the types of results returned (title, source, cover image, etc.). It distinguishes itself from general search and siblings like image_search by explicitly scoping to videos, but the mention of 'video search' in keywords reinforces the domain.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants to find videos, clips, footage, tutorials, or a specific moment within a video — not for general text web search.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, and it also mentions beta access limitation.

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