XMLStock: video

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

Beyond the sparse annotations, the description discloses the paid-per-request nature, explains the truncated flag's meaning, and specifies the returned object shape. This is valuable behavioral context that annotations cannot convey, and nothing in the description contradicts the annotations.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load purpose and cost, list only relevant output fields, and define an important edge case. Every sentence carries useful information without filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return fields and explaining truncated behavior, while the schema covers parameters well. It does not explicitly state credential prerequisites, but the sibling *_auth_status/set_credentials tools and the paid-request warning provide enough operational context for an agent to proceed.

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 71%, and the description does not add substantial parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning 'requested depth' indirectly through truncated. Most parameter semantics (depth pagination, region mapping, safeSearch behavior) are already well documented in the input schema, so the description adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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?

Description states a specific action and resource: 'Поиск по видео Google через XMLStock', clearly distinguishing this video-search tool from siblings like xmlstock_serp, xmlstock_images, and xmlstock_news. It also enumerates the exact return fields, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 signals a critical cost condition ('ПЛАТНО за запрос') and explains truncated=true, helping an agent interpret when results are incomplete. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, but the video-specific focus supplies enough contextual direction.

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