search_videos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'royalty-free videos on Pixabay,' which hints at licensing and source, but lacks critical details like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, error handling, or what the response format includes (e.g., video metadata). For a search tool with 11 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool, with every part earning its place by specifying the action, resource, and platform concisely.

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 complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, response format), usage guidelines, and output expectations. For a search tool with many filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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?

The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 11 parameters. The baseline is 3 because the schema adequately documents parameters, and the description doesn't compensate with additional context like default behaviors or usage examples.

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's purpose: 'Search for royalty-free videos on Pixabay.' It specifies the action (search), resource (videos), and platform (Pixabay), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_images. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_video_by_id beyond the search vs. get distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like search_images or get_video_by_id, nor does it specify any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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