search_space_videos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the return artifact (playback MP4 URLs), the limit ceiling (max 10), and a real side effect — show_poster renders a poster inline in chat. It omits any auth, rate-limit, or failure behavior, but the key output and UI-effect traits are surfaced.

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 purpose and return type are front-loaded in one sentence, followed by useful examples and a compact Args block. Every line — including the closing instruction to present the returned link as-is — carries actionable information with no filler.

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 three simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies enough to call the tool correctly and even covers the shape of the response (MP4 URL). It would be complete at 5 if it briefly disambiguated from the image/audio search siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for all three parameters: query gets language guidance (English is more reliable) plus example terms, limit gets default 3 and max 10 (max is not in the schema), and show_poster gets both default True and its visible effect. This adds genuine meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 (宇宙関連の動画を検索, 再生用MP4 URLを返す) and enumerates the video categories covered (打ち上げ・ミッション映像・解説). Examples such as 「火星の動画」「ロケット打ち上げ映像」 plus the MP4 return type let an agent distinguish it from search_space_images and search_space_audio without opening any schema.

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?

Concrete example queries and the note that English keywords are more reliable give clear usage context. However, it never explicitly names the sibling alternatives (search_space_images / search_space_audio) or states exclusions, so the routing decision is implied rather than spelled out.

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