video_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it is in Beta, requires beta access to be requested, and returns ranked results with a specific set of fields. It does not cover rate limits, failure behavior, or authentication, but with annotations present the added detail is solid.

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 mostly tight and front-loaded: purpose, result fields, beta access, and usage guidance appear in the first four sentences. The trailing keyword list is somewhat redundant, but it is short and does not seriously bloat the definition.

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 search tool with seven fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential invocation (text query), the return shape (ranked results with fields), and an access caveat (Beta). It does not explain interactions like `time_range` versus `start_time`/`end_time`, but those are handled in the schema, and the return-field list is valuable because no output schema exists.

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%, and all parameters already have descriptive text, enums, ranges, and defaults. The description only repeats the `query` parameter ('Pass a text `query`'), which adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. This matches the baseline for fully-documented schemas.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find videos on the web by text query.' It also lists the concrete result fields, making the tool's scope unmistakable. It explicitly distinguishes itself from general text web search, which differentiates it from sibling `search`-style tools.

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?

The description clearly states when to use the tool: when the user wants videos, clips, footage, tutorials, or a specific moment inside a video. It also gives a clear exclusion ('not for general text web search'), but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as `search` or `news_search`, so it stops short of full guidance.

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