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 well: it distinguishes content (summary + inline poster) from structuredContent (JSON with title/play URLs/resolution URLs/subtitles), warns that the video is too large to base64-embed and must be streamed from URL, and specifies how links render in CLI/Android harnesses. Auth, rate limits, and error behavior remain unstated, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Content is front-loaded: purpose and return shape come first, then args, then link-rendering detail. The format guidance is somewhat verbose and the link-format paragraph could be tightened, but every block serves the caller.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains both return channels (content vs structuredContent), the poster behavior, and that playback happens via URL rather than embedded data. An agent has everything needed to call and render the result correctly.

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: query is documented with a recommendation to use English, limit is given both default (3) and max (10), and show_poster states its default and meaning. This adds meaning well beyond the bare typed schema.

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 (検索) and resource (宇宙関連の動画 – 打ち上げ・ミッション映像・解説) plus the return type (再生用MP4 URL). The topic clearly separates it from siblings like search_space_images and search_space_audio, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Provides concrete triggering examples (「火星の動画」「ロケット打ち上げ映像」「ハッブルの映像」) that map intent to the tool, giving clear context for use. It does not state when NOT to use it or explicitly route to the image/audio siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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