Search Pexels Videos

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds beyond that: explains video_url is a public CDN MP4 link, instructs not to download, and mandates credit. No contradictions.

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 concise, well-structured with sections, and front-loaded with the most important information. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (9 params, no schema descriptions, has output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, key parameters, output handling, and credits. Minor gap: pagination not discussed, but adequate for most use cases.

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 description must compensate. It explains filters (orientation, size mapping to resolutions, locale), post-hoc filters (aspect_ratio, min_width, min_height with 4x oversample cap 80), and output semantics. However, not all parameters (page, per_page) are explained, but schema titles and defaults provide some info.

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 Pexels for free, commercially-usable stock videos.' It lists specific use cases (B-roll, reels, hero loops, etc.) which distinguish it from sibling tools like pexels_search_photos.

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 explicitly tells when to use ('USE WHEN: ...') and when not to use ('DO NOT USE for AI-generated video or named real people'), and prefers this over web_search. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling Pexels tools like pexels_get_popular_videos.

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