search_videos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and use cases, with no mention of safety, side effects, authentication, rate limits, or return behavior. For a search tool, read-only is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 long, but the first sentence '搜索视频' is a direct restatement of the tool name and adds no new information. The second sentence provides useful context. While compact, the redundancy prevents a higher score.

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 simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and complete parameter descriptions, the description covers the core purpose and a use case. However, it lacks explicit usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, making it minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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%, with all five parameters (query, region, timelimit, safesearch, max_results) fully described in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 '搜索视频' restates the tool name, but the second sentence '适用于查找教程视频、演示视频、课程录像等' specifies concrete use cases (tutorials, demos, course recordings). This clarifies the resource type and intended scope, even though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling search tools.

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 phrase '适用于查找...' implies a context for using the tool (video-related searches), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. The agent gets some guidance but lacks clear differentiation from sibling search tools like search_text or search_images.

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