Search Video

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

The description discloses that the operation is read-only (consistent with annotations), returns every match with timestamp and modality, and ranks by relevance. It also notes the dependency on prior video understanding, which annotations do not cover. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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 two paragraphs: the first clearly defines function and output; the second gives usage guidance with examples. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and the straightforward nature of a read-only search, the description covers all necessary context: what it searches, what it returns, prerequisites, and when to use it. No critical information appears missing.

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 descriptions already cover both parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning: video_id must come from specific prior calls (understand_video or transcribe_video), and query can be a word, phrase, name, number, or topic. This exceeds the level of the input 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 states a specific verb ('searches') and resource ('every information channel of a previously-understood video, including spoken transcript, on-screen text, and visual context'), and specifies the return of matches with timestamps and modality. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like transcribe_video and understand_video by focusing on search rather than extraction or summarization.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when you already know what you're looking for'), the prerequisite ('video_id from a prior understand_video or transcribe_video call'), and names the alternative behavior it replaces ('re-reading a whole transcript'). This gives clear routing guidance relative to siblings.

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