search_videos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool searches for videos and returns results with URLs/metadata, but doesn't describe rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior beyond parameters, error conditions, or what constitutes a successful search. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It starts with the core purpose, then provides a cleanly formatted parameter section with clear explanations, and ends with return value information. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words or redundant 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides good context for a search tool. It covers all parameters thoroughly and states the basic purpose. However, it lacks important behavioral context like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling that would be valuable for an AI agent.

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?

The description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It explains what each parameter does with clear examples and constraints: 'query: Search term (e.g., "nature", "city")', 'per_page: Number of results per page (3-200)', and lists all valid values for video_type and category. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Search for videos on Pixabay.' It specifies the resource (videos) and platform (Pixabay), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'search_images' beyond the resource type. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling comparison.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'search_images' or explain when to search for videos versus images. There's no context about use cases, prerequisites, or limitations beyond basic parameter descriptions.

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