Google Videos search

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), so the description earns credit for adding what they do not: the returned fields (title, URL, platform, channel, duration, publish date, snippet, key moments, Shorts flag), the 100-video ceiling, and the cost of $1 per 1,000 videos. It does not discuss pagination or rate limiting, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Six short sentences, front-loaded with purpose then returns then filtering then limits then cost, so the essentials come first. Slightly list-dense, but no sentence is wasted and nothing is buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of result fields is load-bearing and present. Combined with the result cap and billing note, an agent has everything needed to size the call and interpret the response.

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 100%, so every parameter (time, duration, country, language, max_results) is already documented with enums, defaults and bounds. The description only echoes 'filter by time and length' and 'up to 100 videos per call', adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Search Google's video results') and enumerates the covered platforms (YouTube, TikTok, Vimeo, news sites), which distinguishes it from the sibling get_youtube_transcripts and from search_google_images/news/shopping. An agent can route correctly without opening the 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?

Gives clear context for use ('to find videos on a topic beyond YouTube's own search') and notes the time/length filtering affordance. It does not state explicit exclusions or name a sibling tool as the alternative, so it stops short of a full when/when-not routing rule.

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