search_videos

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so description credit is for added context. The description adds that matching is by title and description and that scope is restricted to the user's own library. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not disclose pagination or result-ordering behavior.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and the key scope limitation are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the clarifying exclusion appears second. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a low-complexity search tool with rich annotations and simple pagination defaults, the description is largely complete. It lacks an output schema and does not describe return value shape, but that is less critical given the simplicity and the presence of sibling list/get tools for detailed retrieval.

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 only 33%: only 'query' has a description. The description helps by specifying that the query matches title and description, but it says nothing about the semantics of page or per_page. These pagination parameters are fairly inferable from their names and defaults, but the description does not fully compensate for the low schema coverage.

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: 'Search your own library by title and description.' It clearly identifies the search scope as the user's own videos and explicitly distinguishes from searching all of Vimeo. This is specific enough to separate it from list_videos and get_video.

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 makes the scope clear by stating 'This searches your videos only, not all of Vimeo,' but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over list_videos or other sibling tools. Usage context is implied rather than stated, and no alternative tool is named for non-search listing use cases.

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