searchVisualContent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it uses specific AI technologies (Apple Vision OCR, Gemini), can auto-index videos if needed, and always returns frame/image evidence with timestamps. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but provides substantial operational context.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence defines purpose and technologies, second sentence specifies output behavior. Every word 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?

For a complex tool with 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and behavioral context but lacks details about return format, error handling, or performance characteristics. It's adequate but leaves gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 36%, but the description compensates by explaining the core functionality (searching visual content) and mentioning auto-indexing behavior. While it doesn't detail individual parameters, it provides essential context about what the tool does with parameters like videoIdOrUrl and autoIndexIfNeeded.

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 clearly states the tool searches visual content of videos or indexed frame libraries using specific technologies (Apple Vision OCR, Gemini). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on visual content search rather than analysis, indexing, or text-based search tools like searchTranscripts.

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 implies usage for visual content searches but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like findSimilarFrames or indexVisualContent. It mentions returning frame/image evidence with timestamps, which suggests use cases requiring visual proof, but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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