Google Videos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's most valuable addition is the explicit cost model ('1 credit per call'), which is real behavioral context absent from annotations. It stops short of disclosing pagination limits, result caps, or what 'metadata' actually contains, which matters for a 12-parameter search tool with no output schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the tool name and purpose, then the return shape, then the cost. Nothing is redundant, though the first sentence ('Google Videos.') merely restates the title and could be merged.

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 annotations covering safety and the schema covering all parameters, the main missing pieces are sibling selection guidance and any sense of return volume or pagination limits. The credit-cost note partially compensates, but for a 12-parameter, open-world search tool the description is only minimally adequate.

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 100%, so every one of the 12 parameters (cr, gl, hl, lr, num, page, safe, uule, query, fields, location, google_domain) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, so the baseline of 3 applies rather than anything higher.

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 ('Search Google Videos via API and retrieve structured video results with metadata'), which clearly distinguishes it from generic web search siblings like google_search or search. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the near-neighbor brave_videos, leaving the agent to infer the provider distinction from the name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over brave_videos, yahoo_search, or google_search, and no stated preconditions or exclusions. The only usage signal is implicit in the tool name and the word 'Search', so the agent must infer selection from sibling names.

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