Search stock footage

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it declares this is preview-only with no download, and since there is no output schema it enumerates the fields the agent will receive. It stops short of describing provider fallback ('auto') or result ordering.

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?

A single tight sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and a compact enumeration of return fields. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 four-parameter, open-world search tool with no output schema and thin annotations, the description covers purpose and return shape but leaves parameter behavior undocumented. An agent can call it, but would guess at what 'provider: auto' does and how 'limit' affects results.

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 the description must carry the burden of explaining the four parameters, and it explains none of them. The meanings of 'term', 'limit' (max 20), 'aspect', and especially 'provider' with its 'auto' default are left entirely to inference from the bare JSON schema enums.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Preview stock clips for a search term') plus the fields returned (source, size, duration, author, licence), so the intent is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as make_short_video, though the 'preview only' framing makes the boundary reasonably clear.

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 parenthetical '(no download)' signals this is a preview/discovery step rather than a fetch, which implicitly tells the agent when to use it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of what alternative to use if the agent wants the actual asset or wants to assemble a video.

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