xmlstock_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly reveals the paid-per-request nature, the shape of the return value, and the meaning of the 'truncated' flag, which is valuable behavioral context. It could mention failure modes or rate limits, but for this tool the key behaviors are covered.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and the critical paid-per-request warning. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does and costs, the second details the return shape and truncation behavior. No filler or 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?

For a video search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description together with the schema is largely complete. It covers what the tool does, cost, return fields, and truncation semantics. Missing details such as alternative tool guidance and specific error behavior are not critical for this level of complexity.

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?

Input schema covers 71% of parameters with descriptions, including depth, region, account, safeSearch, and searchDomain. The description itself does not add parameter semantics beyond mentioning depth in the context of truncation. Query and device are self-explanatory, so the schema coverage is sufficient and a baseline score of 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 performs Google video search via XMLStock ('Поиск по видео Google через XMLStock') and specifies the returned fields. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like xmlstock_images, xmlstock_news, and xmlstock_serp.

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 implies this tool is for video search results and warns that it is paid per request, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. There is no direct comparison with sibling tools like xmlstock_images or xmlstock_serp, leaving usage context somewhat implicit.

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