search_videos

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses the return shape (title, description, url, duration) and the max_results bound of 1-100. It says nothing about rate limits, auth, pagination, or result caps beyond that, which is a meaningful gap for a network-backed search tool.

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?

A one-line purpose followed by a compact parameter list and return summary; nothing is padded, and the schema lacks descriptions so this listing earns its space rather than duplicating structured data.

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?

Every parameter is covered and an output schema exists so return values need no elaboration. However, for a search tool with six parameters and no annotations, the absence of any guidance on result limits, pagination, or query semantics leaves it only 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 0%, and the description fully compensates by documenting all six parameters, including defaults and, critically, the accepted values for safesearch, resolution, and duration that the schema leaves as unconstrained strings. Only minor gaps remain (no format detail for region beyond the example default).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search for videos'), which implicitly separates it from siblings like search_web, search_images and search_books. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 statement of when to choose this over search_everything, search_web, or a fetch tool, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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