answer_from_video

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral transparency by stating the tool finds relevant segments and returns context, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 sentences plus a COMBINE line, all front-loaded with essential info. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, and combination tips. No redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description could clarify what 'context' includes (e.g., timestamps, text snippets). It effectively covers purpose, usage, and combinations, but lacks output format details and potential limitations (e.g., language support). Still fairly complete for its 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?

Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add extra parameter details beyond schema context (e.g., videoId is a video, question is the query). Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already explains parameters sufficiently.

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 searches a video transcript to answer a question and returns context. It distinguishes from siblings like get_transcript (full transcript) and search_in_transcript (search only), and uses specific verb 'search' and resource 'video transcript'.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when user asks does the video mention X?' and provides combination advice with get_video_moment and create_clip_url for context. This gives clear guidance on when and how to use alongside alternatives.

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