video_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states the tool is in beta and requires beta access, and enumerates return fields. However, it does not describe behavioral traits like idempotency, error behavior, or authentication details beyond beta access.

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: first sentence covers purpose and output, second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value with no 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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose, usage guidance, and output fields. It does not elaborate on all parameters, but the schema covers them. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning parameter relationships (e.g., mutual exclusivity of time_range and start_time/end_time), but overall adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description only mentions 'Pass a text `query`', adding no meaningful information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 searches the live web for videos and returns specific fields (title, source page, cover image, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by stating 'not for general text web search' and implicitly differentiating from image_search, news_search, and others.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use ('when the user wants to find videos, clips, or footage') and when not ('not for general text web search'). It also notes that the tool is in beta and requires contacting for access, providing essential prerequisite context.

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